Replace use of base::RandXXX() with rand() to improve runtime of SeekableBufferTest.

Replace use of base::RandXXX() with rand() to improve runtime of SeekableBufferTest.

r244419 replaced rand() with base::RandXXX(), but this has caused Windows Dr. Memory runs to take 100X longer to run.  Since the test doesn't need good random numbers, this change reverts back to using the rand() in <cstdlib>.

TEST=Confirmed media_unittests performance is now on-par with that prior to r244419.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=245690

[miu, 2014-01-17 22:36:12]

Dale: PTAL (description explains).

[DaleCurtis, 2014-01-17 23:28:21]

lgtm otherwise.

https://codereview.chromium.org/139303022/diff/1/media/base/seekable_buffer_u...
File media/base/seekable_buffer_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/139303022/diff/1/media/base/seekable_buffer_u...
media/base/seekable_buffer_unittest.cc:22: static const int kDataSize = 409600;
Geez are we really allocating 400k of data for this test?

https://codereview.chromium.org/139303022/diff/1/media/base/seekable_buffer_u...
media/base/seekable_buffer_unittest.cc:35: data_[i] = static_cast<char>(rand());
You might try base::RandBytes()... after this CL that I just wrote haha:
https://codereview.chromium.org/140773006/

[miu, 2014-01-17 23:36:39]

On 2014/01/17 23:28:21, DaleCurtis wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/139303022/diff/1/media/base/seekable_buffer_u...
> media/base/seekable_buffer_unittest.cc:22: static const int kDataSize =
409600;
> Geez are we really allocating 400k of data for this test?

Seems so.  The tests run in under 10ms, though, so I'm not going to fix what
ain't broken.  ;-)

>
https://codereview.chromium.org/139303022/diff/1/media/base/seekable_buffer_u...
> media/base/seekable_buffer_unittest.cc:35: data_[i] =
static_cast<char>(rand());
> You might try base::RandBytes()... after this CL that I just wrote haha:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/140773006/

I would use base::RandBytes(), except the whole problem was with *Windows* Dr.
Memory runs.  It doesn't seem that any calls to base::RandUint64() on Windows
are going to be efficient-enough for this particular unit test.  :-/

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-17 23:37:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/miu@chromium.org/139303022/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-01-18 01:01:51]

Change committed as 245690