Fix issue 8348: unfork pe_image.h / pe_image.cc

Fix issue 8348: unfork pe_image.h / pe_image.cc

Moved versions of those files from sandbox/src/ to base/ (overwrite versions in base/ to avoid 64-bit warning).
Removed 'sandbox' namespace, adapted other files as necessary.

BUG=8348
TEST=none

[Roland, 2009-08-31 13:59:17]

Removed duplicated files pe_image.cc/.h as requested in the bug description.

- Roland

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2009-09-01 00:32:26]

It appears to be a problem with the change. Let me check something. Thanks for
your patience.


On 2009/08/31 13:59:17, Roland wrote:
> Removed duplicated files pe_image.cc/.h as requested in the bug description.
> 
> - Roland

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2009-09-01 01:20:20]

Ok, here is the deal:

Line 523, 530 the sandbox has DWORD rva and the base as DWORD_PTR rva, the thing
is that an rva is really a 32 bits, even in 64 bit windows.

In other words, it is fine doing the change but we should keep the one in
sandbox, but living in base.
 

On 2009/09/01 00:32:26, cpu wrote:
> It appears to be a problem with the change. Let me check something. Thanks for
> your patience.
> 
> 
> On 2009/08/31 13:59:17, Roland wrote:
> > Removed duplicated files pe_image.cc/.h as requested in the bug description.
> > 
> > - Roland

[Roland, 2009-09-01 03:16:30]

You're right. I checked that both resolve to the same type (unsigned long), but
misunderstood the meaning of the __w64 flag.

In the new patch set I copied the files from /sandbox/src/ over to base/,
overwriting the versions there before re-applying the cleanup (remove namespace,
basically).


On 2009/09/01 01:20:20, cpu wrote:
> Ok, here is the deal:
> 
> Line 523, 530 the sandbox has DWORD rva and the base as DWORD_PTR rva, the
thing
> is that an rva is really a 32 bits, even in 64 bit windows.
> 
> In other words, it is fine doing the change but we should keep the one in
> sandbox, but living in base.

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2009-09-01 16:45:40]

awesome LGTM



On 2009/09/01 03:16:30, Roland wrote:
> You're right. I checked that both resolve to the same type (unsigned long),
but
> misunderstood the meaning of the __w64 flag.
> 
> In the new patch set I copied the files from /sandbox/src/ over to base/,
> overwriting the versions there before re-applying the cleanup (remove
namespace,
> basically).
> 
> 
> On 2009/09/01 01:20:20, cpu wrote:
> > Ok, here is the deal:
> > 
> > Line 523, 530 the sandbox has DWORD rva and the base as DWORD_PTR rva, the
> thing
> > is that an rva is really a 32 bits, even in 64 bit windows.
> > 
> > In other words, it is fine doing the change but we should keep the one in
> > sandbox, but living in base.

[rvargas (doing something else), 2009-09-01 18:10:25]

I think you should also remove the unit test file from the sandbox folder.

Other than that, thanks for doing this.

http://codereview.chromium.org/179039/diff/4001/4002
File base/pe_image.cc (left):

http://codereview.chromium.org/179039/diff/4001/4002#oldcode15
Line 15: #endif
Could you keep this comment. It is still valid.

[Roland, 2009-09-04 13:30:54]

Uploaded a new patch set with the requested modifications. Also removed the
correpsonding entries from the .gyp file.

On 2009/09/01 18:10:25, rvargas wrote:
> I think you should also remove the unit test file from the sandbox folder.
> 
> Other than that, thanks for doing this.
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/179039/diff/4001/4002
> File base/pe_image.cc (left):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/179039/diff/4001/4002#oldcode15
> Line 15: #endif
> Could you keep this comment. It is still valid.

[rvargas (doing something else), 2009-09-04 17:41:16]

LGTM, Thanks.

[Roland, 2009-09-06 23:58:55]

On 2009/09/04 17:41:16, rvargas wrote:
> LGTM, Thanks.

Now just need a kind soul to commit it for me. :)

Cheers,

Roland

[tkent, 2009-09-08 05:41:51]

> Now just need a kind soul to commit it for me. :)

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=25611