On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:28:13PM -0800, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <pidgeo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 1/15/2016 1:21 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: > >> > >> Has anyone measured recently whether there's still a significant perf win > >> to making IIDs 32-bit? If we stop using them as a versioning tool, we > >> could > >> potentially relax our uniqueness requirements, and save a lot of > >> comparisons on each QI. Addon-compat would be tricky, but is potentially > >> solvable. > > > > > > Are we still using nsISupports in a way that we expect it to be > > ABI-compatible with IUnknown? > > Last I checked (which was years ago), the accessibility code still > did. More specifically it implement MSCOM and XPCOM interfaces on the > same object. > > Which is why we're forced to use stdcall and thus why we're using the > NS_IMETHOD* macros. > > See also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=662348
The accessibility code still does that. we've moved away from it some, but completely fixing it has never been really high priority. I've never been totally clear on how that over loading manages to work, but I wonder if changing to nsresult QueryInterface(int, void**) would keep the two methods separate enough that it would be ok. Trev > > Trevor, do you know if this has been fixed in the accessibility code since? > > / Jonas > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
