Fix up some types in the API.

ppapi/c/ppb_core.h

Index: ppapi/c/ppb_core.h
diff --git a/ppapi/c/ppb_core.h b/ppapi/c/ppb_core.h
index 6571db008050769ccfe19a826563dd9515d77bde..31a441c7e70ddff94c14bdf83e6acc7489f099fc 100644
--- a/ppapi/c/ppb_core.h
+++ b/ppapi/c/ppb_core.h
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 
 struct PP_CompletionCallback;
 
-#define PPB_CORE_INTERFACE "PPB_Core;0.3"
+#define PPB_CORE_INTERFACE "PPB_Core;0.4"

[dmichael(do not use this one), 2011/03/21 21:53:24]

Are you going to put in any backwards compatibility for this?  Changing PPB_Core
is going to break pretty much all existing apps, I think.

[neb, 2011/03/21 22:16:15]

Nope. Breakage will ensue.

[David Springer, 2011/03/21 22:31:29]

This will, in particular, break all the NaCl gallery examples which are on a
public code page.  This is a pain in the a-- but we can deal with it - we just
need to track this and update the gallery when appropriate.  Note that NaCl is
behind a flag and therefore subject to random breakage without notice, so this
is not a huge problem.  We just need a heads-up as this change bubble through
the proxy, etc.

 
 /**
  * @file
@@ -54,11 +54,11 @@ struct PPB_Core {
   /**
    * MemAlloc is a pointer to a function that allocate memory.
    *
-   * @param[in] num_bytes A size_t number of bytes to allocate.
+   * @param[in] num_bytes A number of bytes to allocate.
    * @return A pointer to the memory if successful, NULL If the
    * allocation fails.
    */
-  void* (*MemAlloc)(size_t num_bytes);
+  void* (*MemAlloc)(uint32_t num_bytes);
 
   /**
    * MemFree is a pointer to a function that deallocates memory.
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ struct PPB_Core {
    * @param[in] ptr A pointer to the memory to deallocate. It is safe to
    * pass NULL to this function.
    */
-  void (*MemFree)(void* ptr);
+  void (*MemFree)(const void* ptr);

[dmichael(do not use this one), 2011/03/21 21:53:24]

This isn't really that obvious to me.  I understand that it's okay to use a
const pointer since it's only freeing the memory (not modifying it like delete
w/destructor might).  But logically speaking, I would think a developer who
needs to free the memory should probably have a non-const pointer to it (or at
worst be willing to const-cast).

Did you run in to a place where you had a const pointer but needed to deallocate
it?

It sometimes even makes sense to null-out (or put garbage in) the given portion
of memory to smoke out bugs.  In that case, ptr would in fact be changed.  Once
the memory is freed, the developer can't make any assumptions about the value.

Not a big deal to me...  but it's not clear to me what you gain by making it
const.

[neb, 2011/03/21 22:16:15]

Const-ness of pointer has to do with what the function is allowed to do with it.
In IDL, we mark in/out/inout params, and I was thinking of marking this ptr as
in.

But you're right in that it could be marked inout, as libc's free() does indeed
take non-const pointer.  I'll make ptr be inout and remove this change from the
CL.

Done.

 
   /**
    * GetTime is a pointer to a function that returns the "wall clock