Layout captions in simplifiedNormalFlowLayout for tables.

Source/core/rendering/RenderTable.cpp

 /*
  * Copyright (C) 1997 Martin Jones (mjones@kde.org)
  *           (C) 1997 Torben Weis (weis@kde.org)
  *           (C) 1998 Waldo Bastian (bastian@kde.org)
  *           (C) 1999 Lars Knoll (knoll@kde.org)
  *           (C) 1999 Antti Koivisto (koivisto@kde.org)
  * Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
  * Copyright (C) 2006 Alexey Proskuryakov (ap@nypop.com)
  *
  * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
@@ skipping 369 matching lines @@
     if (RenderTableSection* section = firstBody())
         extraLogicalHeight -= section->distributeExtraLogicalHeightToRows(extraLogicalHeight);
 
     // FIXME: We really would like to enable this ASSERT to ensure that all the extra space has been distributed.
     // However our current distribution algorithm does not round properly and thus we can have some remaining height.
     // ASSERT(!topSection() || !extraLogicalHeight);
 }
 
 void RenderTable::simplifiedNormalFlowLayout()
 {
+    for (auto& caption : m_captions)

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2014/12/16 15:27:01]

It may not matter much (since I assume and really hope that the children's
position remain untouched during simplified layout), but why not lay out the
table children in tree order (regardless of being captions or header/body/footer
sections), like in RenderTable::layout()?

[dsinclair, 2014/12/16 15:40:32]

Filed crbug.com/442737 and added a comment. I'd like to keep this CL about
fixing the crash, we can do the refactoring later to make it nicer. That sound
good?

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2014/12/16 15:43:31]

Acknowledged.

[Julien - ping for review, 2014/12/16 16:05:53]

Captions needs to be laid out first so that we can stack them on top of each
other (at least for those that are at the top) so I am not sure this is such a
great idea.

[dsinclair, 2014/12/16 17:23:18]

So, you think this should be removed? Or should we discuss it in the bug and
remove later if desired?

[mstensho (USE GERRIT), 2014/12/16 20:37:07]

Isn't it normally the parent that positions the child? In the simplified layout
case, I was assuming that no repositioning was going to take place. After all,
nobody has been bothering to reposition the sections (the code right below).
Same in RenderBlock::simplifiedNormalFlowLayout() - no repositioning.

I think the current proposed change is fine, but I suggested that they be laid
out in the same order as in layout(), just for the sake of consistency. Not that
I really think it would matter, behavior-wise. Considering that for a separate
CL is probably the right thing, though.

+        caption->layoutIfNeeded();
+
     for (RenderTableSection* section = topSection(); section; section = sectionBelow(section)) {
         section->layoutIfNeeded();
         section->computeOverflowFromCells();
     }
 }
 
 void RenderTable::layout()
 {
     ASSERT(needsLayout());
 
@@ skipping 937 matching lines @@
 const BorderValue& RenderTable::tableEndBorderAdjoiningCell(const RenderTableCell* cell) const
 {
     ASSERT(cell->isFirstOrLastCellInRow());
     if (hasSameDirectionAs(cell->row()))
         return style()->borderEnd();
 
     return style()->borderStart();
 }
 
 }