Use PlatformThreadId, not int when dealing with thread ids.

Use PlatformThreadId, not int when dealing with thread ids.

Windows uses a DWORD (unsigned long) for thread ids and POSIX uses a
pid_t (int on Linux) for the same. In the code, we are currently
stuffing thread ids into an int which is dangerous on Windows (because
DWORDS can exceed an int and wrap) and will break if pid_t is ever !=
int.

This change changes all the places where we currently have an int to
use a new typedef, PlatformThreadId. This change also needs to occur
for process ids, but I'm not doing that in this CL.

[John Grabowski, 2009-01-22 20:35:40]

Thanks for following up here.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/4
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/4#newcode24
Line 24: typedef pid_t PlatformThreadId;
On OSX this should be a mach_port_t (return value of mach_thread_self()) not a
pid_t.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/5
File base/platform_thread_posix.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/5#newcode31
Line 31: pid_t PlatformThread::CurrentId() {
pid_t --> PlatformThreadId to match the type in the prototype?

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/6
File base/platform_thread_win.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/6#newcode33
Line 33: DWORD PlatformThread::CurrentId() {
DWORD --> PlatformThreadId so it matches the type in the prototype

[agl, 2009-01-22 20:42:46]

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/4
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/4#newcode24
Line 24: typedef pid_t PlatformThreadId;
On 2009/01/22 20:35:40, John Grabowski wrote:
> On OSX this should be a mach_port_t (return value of mach_thread_self()) not a
> pid_t.

Thanks for the info!

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/5
File base/platform_thread_posix.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/5#newcode31
Line 31: pid_t PlatformThread::CurrentId() {
On 2009/01/22 20:35:40, John Grabowski wrote:
> pid_t --> PlatformThreadId to match the type in the prototype?

It did enforce that the typedef was correct.. but now that it's different for
Mac it has to be PlatformThreadId. Changed.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/6
File base/platform_thread_win.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/1/6#newcode33
Line 33: DWORD PlatformThread::CurrentId() {
On 2009/01/22 20:35:40, John Grabowski wrote:
> DWORD --> PlatformThreadId so it matches the type in the prototype

Done.

[John Grabowski, 2009-01-22 20:53:53]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18#newcode28
Line 28: #elif defined(OS_POSIX)
OS_POSIX --> OS_MACOSX.  It's the same result but is more clear.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18#newcode29
Line 29: #include <mach/mach_traps.h>
mach/mach.h seems more appropriate.

[agl, 2009-01-22 21:15:38]

thanks John.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18#newcode28
Line 28: #elif defined(OS_POSIX)
On 2009/01/22 20:53:53, John Grabowski wrote:
> OS_POSIX --> OS_MACOSX.  It's the same result but is more clear.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/15/18#newcode29
Line 29: #include <mach/mach_traps.h>
On 2009/01/22 20:53:53, John Grabowski wrote:
> mach/mach.h seems more appropriate.

Done.

[darin (slow to review), 2009-01-22 23:36:25]

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/215/31
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/215/31#newcode26
Line 26: #include <unistd.h>
style nit: it is not common in chrome code to indent includes, and this
indentation is not consistent with the #elif defined(OS_POSIX) section above.

[agl, 2009-01-22 23:57:55]

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/215/31
File base/platform_thread.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/18677/diff/215/31#newcode26
Line 26: #include <unistd.h>
On 2009/01/22 23:36:25, darin wrote:
> style nit: it is not common in chrome code to indent includes, and this
> indentation is not consistent with the #elif defined(OS_POSIX) section above.

Indentation removed.