There're several compile warnings when compiling mozilla/accessible module. That's a little annoying and preventing us to find real warnings.

also fixed "*aExtraState =" to "*aExtraState |=" in nsAccessible.cpp

Comment on attachment 266449 [details] [diff] [review] patch >- PRUint32 geckoCoordType = (aCoords == ATK_XY_SCREEN) ? >- nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::COORDTYPE_SCREEN_RELATIVE : >- nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::COORDTYPE_WINDOW_RELATIVE; >+ PRUint32 geckoCoordType; >+ if (aCoords == ATK_XY_SCREEN) >+ geckoCoordType = nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::COORDTYPE_SCREEN_RELATIVE; >+ else >+ geckoCoordType = nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::COORDTYPE_WINDOW_RELATIVE; What's kind of error does '? : ' statement bring? > nsCaretAccessible::nsCaretAccessible(nsIDOMNode* aDocumentNode, nsIWeakReference* aShell, nsRootAccessible *aRootAccessible): >-nsLeafAccessible(aDocumentNode, aShell), mLastCaretOffset(-1), mLastNodeWithCaret(nsnull), >-mCurrentControl(nsnull), mRootAccessible(aRootAccessible) >+nsLeafAccessible(aDocumentNode, aShell), mCurrentControl(nsnull), mLastNodeWithCaret(nsnull), >+mLastCaretOffset(-1), mRootAccessible(aRootAccessible) Why is order important? >- nsresult rv = nsLinkableAccessible::GetState(aState, aExtraState); >+ nsLinkableAccessible::GetState(aState, aExtraState); IIRC usually we do not continue if base GetState() failed.

(In reply to comment #2) > What's kind of error does '? : ' statement bring? warning: enumeral mismatch in conditional expression: ‘nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::<anonymous enum>’ vs ‘nsIAccessibleCoordinateType::<anonymous enum>’ > > nsCaretAccessible::nsCaretAccessible(nsIDOMNode* aDocumentNode, nsIWeakReference* aShell, nsRootAccessible *aRootAccessible): > >-nsLeafAccessible(aDocumentNode, aShell), mLastCaretOffset(-1), mLastNodeWithCaret(nsnull), > >-mCurrentControl(nsnull), mRootAccessible(aRootAccessible) > >+nsLeafAccessible(aDocumentNode, aShell), mCurrentControl(nsnull), mLastNodeWithCaret(nsnull), > >+mLastCaretOffset(-1), mRootAccessible(aRootAccessible) > > Why is order important? nsCaretAccessible.h: In constructor ‘nsCaretAccessible::nsCaretAccessible(nsIDOMNode*, nsIWeakReference*, nsRootAccessible*)’: nsCaretAccessible.h:115: warning: ‘nsCaretAccessible::mLastCaretOffset’ will be initialized after nsCaretAccessible.h:114: warning: ‘nsCOMPtr<nsIDOMNode> nsCaretAccessible::mLastNodeWithCaret’ nsCaretAccessible.cpp:58: warning: when initialized here nsCaretAccessible.h:114: warning: ‘nsCaretAccessible::mLastNodeWithCaret’ will be initialized after nsCaretAccessible.h:107: warning: ‘nsCOMPtr<nsIDOMNode> nsCaretAccessible::mCurrentControl’ nsCaretAccessible.cpp:58: warning: when initialized here > >- nsresult rv = nsLinkableAccessible::GetState(aState, aExtraState); > >+ nsLinkableAccessible::GetState(aState, aExtraState); > > IIRC usually we do not continue if base GetState() failed. > ok, so the problem here is we missed NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv); Right?

Comment on attachment 266449 [details] [diff] [review] patch (In reply to comment #3) > ok, so the problem here is we missed NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS(rv, rv); > Right? > right.