Oilpan: avoid using WeakPtr<> for heap residing objects.

Oilpan: avoid using WeakPtr<> for heap residing objects.

GlobalFetch::ScopedFetcher instances are heap objects, so avoid using
WeakPtr<>s over those.

Also switch over to using WeakPtr* transition types where possible.

R=haraken
BUG=509911
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=201305

[sof, 2015-08-26 15:46:21]

sigbjornf@opera.com changed reviewers:
+ oilpan-reviews@chromium.org

[sof, 2015-08-26 15:46:21]

please take a look.

[haraken, 2015-08-27 00:41:05]

haraken@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ haraken@chromium.org

[haraken, 2015-08-27 00:41:06]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
File Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h:70:
WeakPtrWillBeMember<GlobalFetch::ScopedFetcher> m_scopedFetcher;

I'm wondering why this needs to be a WeakPtr in non-oilpan. Can it just be a
RawPtr?

(I'm asking this just because WeakPtrWillBeMember sounds a bit strange -- it
means that the pointer has a weak semantics in non-oilpan but doesn't in
oilpan.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
File Source/modules/cachestorage/CacheStorage.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
Source/modules/cachestorage/CacheStorage.h:53:
WeakPtrWillBeMember<GlobalFetch::ScopedFetcher> m_scopedFetcher;

Ditto. Can the WeakPtr be a RawPtr in non-oilpan?

[sof, 2015-08-27 05:17:13]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
File Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h:70:
WeakPtrWillBeMember<GlobalFetch::ScopedFetcher> m_scopedFetcher;
On 2015/08/27 00:41:05, haraken wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering why this needs to be a WeakPtr in non-oilpan. Can it just be a
> RawPtr?
> 
> (I'm asking this just because WeakPtrWillBeMember sounds a bit strange -- it
> means that the pointer has a weak semantics in non-oilpan but doesn't in
> oilpan.)

It's a WeakPtr<> because the GlobalFetcherImpl is a supplement of its global
object. Supplements are owned by their supplementables, so we have to drop the
reference from Cache once the supplementable decides to finalize its
supplements.

No such restrictions on the lifetime of the ScopedFetcher references for Cache &
CacheStorage are needed with Oilpan enabled.

[haraken, 2015-08-27 05:18:47]

On 2015/08/27 05:17:13, sof wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
> File Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1320563003/diff/40001/Source/modules/cachesto...
> Source/modules/cachestorage/Cache.h:70:
> WeakPtrWillBeMember<GlobalFetch::ScopedFetcher> m_scopedFetcher;
> On 2015/08/27 00:41:05, haraken wrote:
> > 
> > I'm wondering why this needs to be a WeakPtr in non-oilpan. Can it just be a
> > RawPtr?
> > 
> > (I'm asking this just because WeakPtrWillBeMember sounds a bit strange -- it
> > means that the pointer has a weak semantics in non-oilpan but doesn't in
> > oilpan.)
> 
> It's a WeakPtr<> because the GlobalFetcherImpl is a supplement of its global
> object. Supplements are owned by their supplementables, so we have to drop the
> reference from Cache once the supplementable decides to finalize its
> supplements.
> 
> No such restrictions on the lifetime of the ScopedFetcher references for Cache
&
> CacheStorage are needed with Oilpan enabled.

ah, makes sense. LGTM

[sof, 2015-08-27 05:25:28]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-27 05:25:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1320563003/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1320563003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-27 08:19:04]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-27 08:19:04]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[sof, 2015-08-27 09:03:12]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-27 09:03:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1320563003/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1320563003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-27 10:50:55]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=201305