Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(554)

Issue 236153005: Check isUserActionElement() instead of separate hover/active/focus checks in supportsStyleSharing() (Closed)

Created:
6 years, 8 months ago by esprehn
Modified:
6 years, 8 months ago
Reviewers:
eseidel, ojan
CC:
blink-reviews, sof, eae+blinkwatch, dglazkov+blink, adamk+blink_chromium.org, Inactive, rwlbuis, leviw_travelin_and_unemployed
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Check isUserActionElement() instead of separate hover/active/focus checks in supportsStyleSharing() Since we check all the different states of being a user action element we should just check the primary bit instead. This function is super hot so avoiding some branches helps. This will make us not share for elements in the "active chain", but in the common case that's the same as the regular :active elements unless you mutate the elements in the :active state inside an action (ex. click) Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=171435

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+4 lines, -7 lines) Patch
M Source/core/dom/Element.cpp View 1 chunk +4 lines, -7 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 7 (0 generated)
esprehn
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:14:19 UTC) #1
eseidel
What's the microbenchmark you're using to drive this work? Do you have numbers? This one ...
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:17:06 UTC) #2
eseidel
lgtm I can believe that checking one flag is faste rthan checking 3. Still would ...
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:17:44 UTC) #3
esprehn
The CQ bit was checked by esprehn@chromium.org
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:45:37 UTC) #4
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/esprehn@chromium.org/236153005/1
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:45:48 UTC) #5
esprehn
On 2014/04/14 06:17:44, eseidel wrote: > lgtm > > I can believe that checking one ...
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 06:45:57 UTC) #6
commit-bot: I haz the power
6 years, 8 months ago (2014-04-14 07:51:24 UTC) #7
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Change committed as 171435

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698