Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactored vLocalRect into vLocalBounds #1192

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 2, 2017
Merged

Conversation

@kvark
Copy link
Member

kvark commented May 2, 2017

Fixes #1157

r? @glennw


This change is Reviewable

@kvark
Copy link
Member Author

kvark commented May 2, 2017

On a side note, I think just using a proper naming convention (*Rect vs *Bounds) is getting most of the benefits that GLSL type system would do for us.

@glennw
Copy link
Member

glennw commented May 2, 2017

Looks good, thanks.

@bors-servo r+

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 2, 2017

📌 Commit 07e7024 has been approved by glennw

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 2, 2017

Testing commit 07e7024 with merge 8516d6c...

bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2017
Refactored vLocalRect into vLocalBounds

Fixes #1157

r? @glennw

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
---
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/webrender/1192)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented May 2, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-travis
Approved by: glennw
Pushing 8516d6c to master...

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 07e7024 into servo:master May 2, 2017
3 checks passed
3 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@kvark kvark deleted the kvark:local-bounds branch May 2, 2017
@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented May 8, 2017

We have reports from Servo users that the symptom from #1157 remains.

@kvark
Copy link
Member Author

kvark commented May 8, 2017

@jdm I'm not reopening #1157 yet, since there is a suspicion that it's a different problem, I requested more info on #16393

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.