XFA: Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.

XFA: Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.

R=jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com, tsepez@chromium.org

Committed: https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/9c2c87d1c7443b4eeb3e439af7dc34f695bbd2c8

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 02:16:52]

Description was changed from

==========
Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.
==========

to

==========
XFA: Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.
==========

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 02:16:52]

thestig@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com, tsepez@chromium.org

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 02:17:21]

4.0.3 is a bit old.

[jun_fang, 2016-01-07 03:55:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
File core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp:184: static void
_tiff_warning_ext(thandle_t context,
I think that we should keep these two call-back functions here. It can help us
debug by adding some information printing in these functions.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 04:05:04]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
File core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp:184: static void
_tiff_warning_ext(thandle_t context,
On 2016/01/07 03:55:17, jun_fang wrote:
> I think that we should keep these two call-back functions here. It can help us
> debug by adding some information printing in these functions. 

If a developer needs to debug, they can easily add these lines back.

[jun_fang, 2016-01-07 04:11:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
File core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp:184: static void
_tiff_warning_ext(thandle_t context,
On 2016/01/07 04:05:04, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2016/01/07 03:55:17, jun_fang wrote:
> > I think that we should keep these two call-back functions here. It can help
us
> > debug by adding some information printing in these functions. 
> 
> If a developer needs to debug, they can easily add these lines back.

The original idea was that libtiff found errors and called these call-back
functions to inform the callers. However, they weren't implemented in a right
way. It's OK to remove them. However, if we have a chance to pass the error
information to applications, it can be a better solution.

[jun_fang, 2016-01-07 04:19:35]

On 2016/01/07 04:11:20, jun_fang wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
> File core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
> core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp:184: static void
> _tiff_warning_ext(thandle_t context,
> On 2016/01/07 04:05:04, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2016/01/07 03:55:17, jun_fang wrote:
> > > I think that we should keep these two call-back functions here. It can
help
> us
> > > debug by adding some information printing in these functions. 
> > 
> > If a developer needs to debug, they can easily add these lines back.
> 
> The original idea was that libtiff found errors and called these call-back
> functions to inform the callers. However, they weren't implemented in a right
> way. It's OK to remove them. However, if we have a chance to pass the error
> information to applications, it can be a better solution.

Anyway, this change is fine for me. LGTM. Thanks!

[Tom Sepez, 2016-01-07 17:33:20]

So long as you're renaming directories, maybe it should be called tiff_v4/ so
that we can update in place ???

[Tom Sepez, 2016-01-07 17:34:28]

On 2016/01/07 17:33:20, Tom Sepez wrote:
> So long as you're renaming directories, maybe it should be called tiff_v4/ so
> that we can update in place ??? 
[The full version number in the readme.pdfium]

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 21:33:56]

On 2016/01/07 17:33:20, Tom Sepez wrote:
> So long as you're renaming directories, maybe it should be called tiff_v4/ so
> that we can update in place ???

Maybe just libtiff then?

[Tom Sepez, 2016-01-07 22:04:33]

On 2016/01/07 21:33:56, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On 2016/01/07 17:33:20, Tom Sepez wrote:
> > So long as you're renaming directories, maybe it should be called tiff_v4/
so
> > that we can update in place ???
> 
> Maybe just libtiff then?
As you like, LGTM otherwise.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 23:52:15]

third_party/libtiff it is...

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
File core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1563103002/diff/20001/core/src/fxcodec/codec/...
core/src/fxcodec/codec/fx_codec_tiff.cpp:184: static void
_tiff_warning_ext(thandle_t context,
On 2016/01/07 04:11:20, jun_fang wrote:
> On 2016/01/07 04:05:04, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > On 2016/01/07 03:55:17, jun_fang wrote:
> > > I think that we should keep these two call-back functions here. It can
help
> us
> > > debug by adding some information printing in these functions. 
> > 
> > If a developer needs to debug, they can easily add these lines back.
> 
> The original idea was that libtiff found errors and called these call-back
> functions to inform the callers. However, they weren't implemented in a right
> way. It's OK to remove them. However, if we have a chance to pass the error
> information to applications, it can be a better solution. 

If there is a real need to do this, we can always put the handlers back.

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 23:52:51]

Description was changed from

==========
XFA: Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.
==========

to

==========
XFA: Upgrade to libtiff 4.0.6.

R=jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com, tsepez@chromium.org

Committed:
https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/9c2c87d1c7443b4eeb3e439af7dc34f695bb...
==========

[Lei Zhang, 2016-01-07 23:52:52]

Committed patchset #5 (id:40001) manually as
9c2c87d1c7443b4eeb3e439af7dc34f695bbd2c8 (presubmit successful).