There's quite a few that can go.

I'm not sure where this was bootlegging from, so let's fix it first.

Also the final inclusion of domstubs.h, hence to seemingly unrelated forward declarations.

Comment on attachment 722345 [details] [diff] [review] Part k: Stop including nsIContent.h Review of attachment 722345 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- I must say that I find some amusement in content utils no longer including content.

Comment on attachment 722350 [details] [diff] [review] Part n: Stop including nsINode.h and nsIDOMNode.h Review of attachment 722350 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: content/base/public/nsContentUtils.h @@ +18,5 @@ > #include <ieeefp.h> > #endif > > +#include "gc/Root.h" > +#include "js/Value.h" Ugh, do we really need those?

(In reply to Kyle Huey [:khuey] (khuey@mozilla.com) from comment #21) > Comment on attachment 722350 [details] [diff] [review] > Part n: Stop including nsINode.h and nsIDOMNode.h > > Review of attachment 722350 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > ::: content/base/public/nsContentUtils.h > @@ +18,5 @@ > > #include <ieeefp.h> > > #endif > > > > +#include "gc/Root.h" > > +#include "js/Value.h" > > Ugh, do we really need those? Looks like we can get rid of js/Value.h, but gc/Root.h will only get more annoying as the JS guys start to exactly root the browser.

Comment on attachment 722354 [details] [diff] [review] Part r: Stop including nsTArray.h in nsReadableUtils.h Review of attachment 722354 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you really need to add nsTArray to all these headers? I would expect some of them to be ok with the forward decl.

(In reply to Kyle Huey [:khuey] (khuey@mozilla.com) from comment #24) > Comment on attachment 722354 [details] [diff] [review] > Part r: Stop including nsTArray.h in nsReadableUtils.h > > Review of attachment 722354 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Do you really need to add nsTArray to all these headers? I would expect > some of them to be ok with the forward decl. I think these all are classes with TArray member variables. IIRC, that requires the inclusion.

Comment on attachment 722346 [details] [diff] [review] Part l: Stop including nsIDocument.h and fix two nits Review of attachment 722346 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ::: media/webrtc/signaling/src/peerconnection/PeerConnectionImpl.cpp @@ +38,1 @@ > #ifdef MOZILLA_INTERNAL_API Oh god. When is that ever not defined? Can you file a followup on this?

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/3b68556f1d00 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a8595e3ac566 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/971876285540 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1904813e2c59 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f9d6556f83a8 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/98f7b66f7ced https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5398b2d00b9f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2b31cd940a78 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/32c51f939d3b https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8668238bc3d6 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f89a0659f96f https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e92dc4c995ee https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cbcd134afa17 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2edee0157a26 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/a685608fd4ef https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4d13fb8077fc https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1aba40692b5d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f5da57075370 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cf53a926a60d https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/15452886f54e