added fix that deals with precision in layer sorter

cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc

Index: cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc
diff --git a/cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc b/cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc
index 941bd725158d8daa57b8a1c9ab99f4e327b1e356..76b10f2e10ce1e7ed8f05a8db33877bd08b46118 100644
--- a/cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc
+++ b/cc/layer_sorter_unittest.cc
@@ -264,4 +264,51 @@ TEST(LayerSorterTest, verifyExistingOrderingPreservedWhenNoZDiff)
     EXPECT_EQ(5, layerList[4]->id());
 }
 
+TEST(LayerSorterTest, verifyConcidentLayerPrecisionLossResultsInDocumentOrder)
+{
+    DebugScopedSetImplThread thisScopeIsOnImplThread;
+
+    scoped_ptr<LayerImpl> layer1 = LayerImpl::create(1);
+    scoped_ptr<LayerImpl> layer2 = LayerImpl::create(2);
+
+    // Layer 1 should occur of layer 2 in paint.  However, due to numeric
+    // issues in the sorter, it will puts the layers in the wrong order
+    // in some situations.  Here we test a patch that results in in
+    // document order rather than calculated order when numeric percision
+    // is suspect in calculated order.
+
+    WebTransformationMatrix BehindMatrix;
+    BehindMatrix.translate3d(0, 0, 0.999999f);
+    BehindMatrix.rotate3d(38.5f, 77.0f, 0);
+    WebTransformationMatrix FrontMatrix;
+    FrontMatrix.translate3d(0, 0, 1.0f);
+    FrontMatrix.rotate3d(38.5f, 77.0f, 0);
+
+    layer1->setBounds(IntSize(10, 10));
+    layer1->setContentBounds(IntSize(10, 10));
+    layer1->setDrawTransform(BehindMatrix);
+    layer1->setDrawsContent(true);
+
+    layer2->setBounds(IntSize(10, 10));
+    layer2->setContentBounds(IntSize(10, 10));
+    layer2->setDrawTransform(FrontMatrix);
+    layer2->setDrawsContent(true);
+
+    std::vector<LayerImpl*> layerList;
+    layerList.push_back(layer1.get());
+    layerList.push_back(layer2.get());
+
+    ASSERT_EQ(static_cast<size_t>(2), layerList.size());
+    EXPECT_EQ(1, layerList[0]->id());
+    EXPECT_EQ(2, layerList[1]->id());
+
+    LayerSorter layerSorter;
+    layerSorter.sort(layerList.begin(), layerList.end());
+
+    ASSERT_EQ(static_cast<size_t>(2), layerList.size());
+    EXPECT_EQ(1, layerList[0]->id());
+    EXPECT_EQ(2, layerList[1]->id());
+    EXPECT_FALSE(1.0f == 0.999999f);

[enne (OOO), 2012/11/01 22:55:23]

As I think about it, I'm not sure this is worth asserting.  Can you just remove
this line?

+}
+
 } // namespace