Returning const by ref instead of const by value in File::name() api

Returning const by ref instead of const by value in File::name() api

BUG=393155
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=200886

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-19 07:00:30]

shiva.jm@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ fmalita@chromium.org, hiroshige@chromium.org

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-19 07:00:30]

pls have a look.

[hiroshige, 2015-08-19 07:38:25]

hiroshige@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sigbjornf@opera.com

[hiroshige, 2015-08-19 07:38:25]

https://codereview.chromium.org/157363003/ replaced "const String& name()" with
"const String name()" and I'm not sure why.

+sof@, what was the intention for the change? Can we safely revert it by this
CL?

[sof, 2015-08-19 07:47:28]

On 2015/08/19 07:38:25, hiroshige (ooo zombie) wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/157363003/ replaced "const String& name()"
with
> "const String name()" and I'm not sure why.
> 
> +sof@, what was the intention for the change? Can we safely revert it by this
> CL?

A while ago, but it seemed like a questionable optimization detail to keep
around. If you want to push for this though, please do & revert.

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-19 10:03:33]

On 2015/08/19 07:47:28, sof wrote:
> On 2015/08/19 07:38:25, hiroshige (ooo zombie) wrote:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/157363003/ replaced "const String& name()"
> with
> > "const String name()" and I'm not sure why.
> > 
> > +sof@, what was the intention for the change? Can we safely revert it by
this
> > CL?
> 
> A while ago, but it seemed like a questionable optimization detail to keep
> around. If you want to push for this though, please do & revert.

As per issue 393155 comments, it's more efficient to return reference.

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-20 05:33:21]

shiva.jm@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ jsbell@chromium.org, yosin@chromium.org

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-20 05:33:21]

pls have a look.

[hiroshige, 2015-08-20 05:38:51]

On 2015/08/20 05:33:21, shiva.jm wrote:
> pls have a look.

asan/msan bots are happy.
non-owner lgtm.

[sof, 2015-08-20 05:52:16]

lgtm

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-20 05:53:05]

The CQ bit was checked by shiva.jm@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 05:53:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1305463002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1305463002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 06:40:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 06:40:45]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_clang_dbg_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_clang_d...)

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-20 07:02:11]

The CQ bit was checked by shiva.jm@samsung.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 07:02:22]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1305463002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1305463002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 08:05:34]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 08:05:34]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_clang_dbg_recipe on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_clang_d...)

[shiva.jm, 2015-08-20 08:13:03]

The CQ bit was checked by shiva.jm@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 08:13:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1305463002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1305463002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-20 08:30:57]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=200886