Mirrors/servo
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/servo/servo.git synced 2025-08-06 14:10:11 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Auto merge of #8042 - bholley:dirty_siblings, r=pcwalton

Browse source 
Remove HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS.

This isn't doing anything right now, and we're not even setting it properly
in dirty_impl the |dirty_subtree(self)| was causing us to hit the skip case
for step 3.

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/8042)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This commit is contained in:
bors-servo 2015-10-21 12:18:02 -06:00
commit 50ec235384
4 changed files with 6 additions and 39 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

37
components/script/dom/node.rs
View file

@ -129,27 +129,24 @@ bitflags! {
const HAS_CHANGED = 0x02,
#[doc = "Specifies whether this node needs style recalc on next reflow."]
const IS_DIRTY = 0x04,
#[doc = "Specifies whether this node has siblings (inclusive of itself) which \
changed since the last reflow."]
const HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS = 0x08,
#[doc = "Specifies whether this node has descendants (inclusive of itself) which \
have changed since the last reflow."]
const HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS = 0x10,
const HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS = 0x08,
// TODO: find a better place to keep this (#4105)
// https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=8873
// Perhaps using a Set in Document?
#[doc = "Specifies whether or not there is an authentic click in progress on \
this element."]
const CLICK_IN_PROGRESS = 0x20,
const CLICK_IN_PROGRESS = 0x10,
#[doc = "Specifies whether this node is focusable and whether it is supposed \
to be reachable with using sequential focus navigation."]
const SEQUENTIALLY_FOCUSABLE = 0x40,
const SEQUENTIALLY_FOCUSABLE = 0x20,
}
}
impl NodeFlags {
pub fn new() -> NodeFlags {
HAS_CHANGED | IS_DIRTY | HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS | HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS
HAS_CHANGED | IS_DIRTY | HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS
}
}
@ -474,14 +471,6 @@ impl Node {
self.set_flag(IS_DIRTY, state)
}
pub fn get_has_dirty_siblings(&self) -> bool {
self.get_flag(HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS)
}
pub fn set_has_dirty_siblings(&self, state: bool) {
self.set_flag(HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS, state)
}
pub fn get_has_dirty_descendants(&self) -> bool {
self.get_flag(HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS)
}
@ -514,7 +503,7 @@ impl Node {
// Stop if this subtree is already dirty.
if node.get_is_dirty() { return }
node.set_flag(IS_DIRTY | HAS_DIRTY_SIBLINGS | HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS, true);
node.set_flag(IS_DIRTY | HAS_DIRTY_DESCENDANTS, true);
for kid in node.children() {
dirty_subtree(kid.r());
@ -523,22 +512,6 @@ impl Node {
dirty_subtree(self);
// 3. Dirty siblings.
//
// TODO(cgaebel): This is a very conservative way to account for sibling
// selectors. Maybe we can do something smarter in the future.
if !self.get_has_dirty_siblings() {
let parent =
match self.parent_node.get() {
None => return,
Some(parent) => parent,
};
for sibling in parent.r().children() {
sibling.r().set_has_dirty_siblings(true);
}
}
// 4. Dirty ancestors.
for ancestor in self.ancestors() {
if !force_ancestors && ancestor.r().get_has_dirty_descendants() { break }