[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 199209] [Catalina] Enable WebKit build

bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org
Wed Jun 26 18:45:14 PDT 2019


Darin Adler <darin at apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |darin at apple.com

--- Comment #15 from Darin Adler <darin at apple.com> ---
Comment on attachment 372970
  --> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=372970

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=372970&action=review

> Source/WTF/wtf/spi/cocoa/SecuritySPI.h:61

Need a comment explaining why this is needed. It’s normal to have this file define things. But it’s quite another thing, and much more advanced, to have it define header guards to work around unavailability macros. Also seems to me that needs to be done in the prefix, not the SPI header.

> Source/WebCore/WebCorePrefix.h:154
> +#endif

Need a comment explaining why this is valuable and needed. Not just in the change log.

Given this, do we also need the #define in SecuritySPI.h above? I presume/hope not.

> Source/WebKit/WebKit2Prefix.h:41

Need a comment explaining why this is valuable and needed. Not just in the change log.

> Source/WebKitLegacy/mac/WebView/WebHTMLView.mm:215
> +{
> + at protected
> +    NSArray<NSView *> *_subviews;
> +}
> +#endif

Surprised a protected field is SPI. And surprised that defining it in a category does the right thing. Are you sure this technique is correct? Gets a binary that works, not just compiles?

Also, if we have something this tricky, I think it eventually needs to move into an SPI header, not just in a .mm file, and especially not in two different .mm files.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20190627/473967a1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the webkit-unassigned mailing list