Merge image sizing algorithms

third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp

Index: third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp
diff --git a/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp b/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp
index 3d6d0f913eb04a570f2d45cd7e6e13d36f321766..18d62ab616424e0f8d9335f88957a71aada02cfd 100644
--- a/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp
+++ b/third_party/WebKit/Source/core/paint/BoxPainter.cpp
@@ -136,9 +136,11 @@ void BoxPainter::paintBackground(const PaintInfo& paintInfo, const LayoutRect& p
 
 bool BoxPainter::isFillLayerOpaque(const FillLayer& layer, const LayoutObject& imageClient)
 {
+    // The default object size passed down to imageSize is empty with the implication that images
+    // with no intrinsic size are treated as empty.
     return layer.hasOpaqueImage(&imageClient)
         && layer.image()->canRender()
-        && !layer.image()->imageSize(&imageClient, imageClient.style()->effectiveZoom()).isEmpty()
+        && !layer.image()->imageSize(&imageClient, imageClient.style()->effectiveZoom(), LayoutSize()).isEmpty()

[fs, 2016/03/03 15:22:53]

Not your doing, and no action necessarily required, but in many cases
canRender() above will end up in ImageResource::canRender which checks this
predicate - just without the default object size. So I'm guessing that we'd
rather want to be able to use canRender() alone to determine this (I'm guessing
it won't work though because not all subclasses implement the method in a
compatible manner AFAICS.)

Regardless though, passing effective zoom seems redundant.

[davve, 2016/03/04 06:49:43]

Good observation. Using canRender() alone would be the reasonable thing here.
I'll queue a CL for getting this of at least this part.

         && layer.hasRepeatXY();
 }