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

Remove "Layer" space #2679

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 23, 2018
Merged

Remove "Layer" space #2679

merged 1 commit into from Apr 23, 2018

Conversation

@nc4rrillo
Copy link
Contributor

nc4rrillo commented Apr 21, 2018

Fixes #2672


This change is Reviewable

@nc4rrillo nc4rrillo force-pushed the nc4rrillo:remove-layer-space branch from 14009bb to 4ab3936 Apr 21, 2018
@glennw
Copy link
Member

glennw commented Apr 22, 2018

Thanks, looks good to me. I built Gecko and it compiles and runs with this PR, so 🚀

@bors-servo r+

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 22, 2018

📌 Commit 4ab3936 has been approved by glennw

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 22, 2018

Testing commit 4ab3936 with merge 53d21e7...

bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2018
Remove "Layer" space

Fixes #2672

<!-- 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/2679)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 23, 2018

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-taskcluster
Approved by: glennw
Pushing 53d21e7 to master...

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 4ab3936 into servo:master Apr 23, 2018
3 checks passed
3 checks passed
Taskcluster (pull_request) TaskGroup: success
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@staktrace
Copy link
Contributor

staktrace commented Apr 23, 2018

For the record, this did break the Gecko build. (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1454623#c9)

@glennw
Copy link
Member

glennw commented Apr 23, 2018

(from discussion with kats on IRC)

The reason I was able to build locally in this case is that I didn't do a FFI bindings regeneration step, so it just happened to work since the memory layout between the two types is exactly the same. Sorry!

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.