| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1180333002.
|
|
Nearly automatic merge + re-run script on new files.
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1180593004.
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1174303002.
|
|
New manual edits in the following to fix compilation:
fx_bmp.h, fx_gif.h, fx_graphics.h
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1169963003
R=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1170103004
|
|
Original Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1160443004
TBR=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1162013003
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
