Revert of Revert of refactor emboldenGlyph

Revert of https://codereview.chromium.org/119943002/
Reason for revert: False alert on zheng.xu's original CL - it didn't break anything.

TBR=bungeman@google.com,reed@google.com,zheng.xu@arm.com,robertphillips@google.com,rmistry@google.com
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=12822

[benchen, 2013-12-26 15:49:39]

Created Revert of Revert of refactor emboldenGlyph

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-26 15:49:44]

No LGTM from a valid reviewer yet. Only full committers are accepted.
Even if an LGTM may have been provided, it was from a non-committer or
a lowly provisional committer, _not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[rmistry, 2013-12-26 15:50:13]

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-26 15:50:24]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/bensong@google.com/117963003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-12-26 15:50:32]

Change committed as 12822

[ukai, 2014-01-28 05:21:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
File src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp:1: 
why did it add some binary data?
(0xEF 0xBB 0xBF 0x0A)

[bungeman-skia, 2014-01-28 16:12:16]

https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
File src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp:1: 
On 2014/01/28 05:21:46, ukai wrote:
> why did it add some binary data?
> (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF 0x0A)

This (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF) is the UTF-8 encoding of the BOM. Ick, what is that doing
here?

[bungeman-skia, 2014-01-28 16:19:56]

On 2014/01/28 16:12:16, bungeman1 wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
> File src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
> src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp:1: 
> On 2014/01/28 05:21:46, ukai wrote:
> > why did it add some binary data?
> > (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF 0x0A)
> 
> This (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF) is the UTF-8 encoding of the BOM. Ick, what is that
doing
> here?

Ah, I see, this BOM was introduced in the original CL, removed in the revert,
and re-introduced in the revert-revert. We should probably remove this.

[bungeman-skia, 2014-01-28 20:37:15]

On 2014/01/28 16:19:56, bungeman1 wrote:
> On 2014/01/28 16:12:16, bungeman1 wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
> > File src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/117963003/diff/1/src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeTyp...
> > src/ports/SkFontHost_FreeType.cpp:1: 
> > On 2014/01/28 05:21:46, ukai wrote:
> > > why did it add some binary data?
> > > (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF 0x0A)
> > 
> > This (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF) is the UTF-8 encoding of the BOM. Ick, what is that
> doing
> > here?
> 
> Ah, I see, this BOM was introduced in the original CL, removed in the revert,
> and re-introduced in the revert-revert. We should probably remove this.

https://codereview.chromium.org/141433025/