| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1160443004
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1162013003
|
|
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1101933003
TBR=brucedawson@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1108903002
|
|
Not just a simple merge, but changes to remove CFX_Object from XFA.
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1088733002
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1087053002
|
|
None of these are currently reachable because the IsSafeMode
method always returns true. This, in turn, will let us kill
off some file (as in fopen()) based parsing. That, in turn,
will let us kill of some more now-unreachable code.
In general, we don't want to have unsafe modes.
BUG=https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/issues/detail?id=116
R=jam@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/883393007
|
|
TBR=brucedawson@chromium.org
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/880663003
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/884473003
|
|
Orignal Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/875263002
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/880753002
|
|
Original CL at https://codereview.chromium.org/873523002/
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/871773002
|
|
Original at URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/810883005
Note that the new code in XFA introduces many more of these, to be handled
separately.
TBR=brucedawson@chromium.org
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
BUG=https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/issues/detail?id=102
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/842223004
|
|
BUG=406806
R=tsepez@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/503883002
|
|
(patchset #1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/493163003/)
Reason for revert:
Needs to address comments before landing
Original issue's description:
> Use number of components from ICC profile and alternate color space
>
> BUG=406806
>
> Committed: https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/be83103
TBR=tsepez@chromium.org,jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=406806
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/504883003
|
|
BUG=406806
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/493163003
|
|
BUG=387983
R=tsepez@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/454283002
|
|
Should there be cases where this fails to compile, it indicates a mistake,
either an incorrectly declared overrriden virtual method, or a method that
should be declared non-virtual.
The only issues were with CPDF_CustomAccess::GetBlock(), CPDF_CustomAccess::GetByte(),
and CPDF_CustomAccess::GetFullPath(). These don't appear to be used anywhere,
and are removed. Two members are removed that are no longer needed once those
methods are removed.
R=jam@chromium.org, jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/454983003
|
|
Calling `delete` on an object of a type that has virtual functions but
not a virtual destructor is questionable: Since the object has virtual functions,
it likely has subclasses, so if it's deleted through the base pointer and the
destructor isn't virtual, the subclass destructor won't be called.
In most cases, the classes getting deleted can just be marked final to tell
the compiler that it can't possibly have subclasses (this also enables the
compiler to generate better code).
Two classes didn't have any sub- or superclasses but virtual functions -
this doesn't make sense, so make all methods of these classes non-virtual.
(Also delete an unused function on one of the two classes.)
In one case, a class actually did have a subclass that needs to be deleted
virtually, so mark one destructor as virtual.
BUG=none
R=bo_xu@foxitsoftware.com
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/370853002
|
|
|
|
|
