Use PRIx64 instead of PRIxPTR for uint64 in deep-heap-profile.

Use PRIx64 instead of PRIxPTR for uint64 in deep-heap-profile.

BUG=162208
R=jyasskin@chromium.org, willchan@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=199471

[Dai Mikurube (NOT FULLTIME), 2013-05-07 10:56:57]

Just a nit fix.  Could you take a look when you have time?

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2013-05-09 21:06:06]

I always forget these macros, but I trust jyasskin@ when he says it's
right/wrong. Jeffrey, mind helping out here? LGTM when Jeffrey says it's fine.

[Jeffrey Yasskin, 2013-05-10 00:52:08]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
File third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc:363: bool
DeepHeapProfile::TextBuffer::AppendPtr(uint64 v, int d) {
Another possible fix would be to change this to uintptr_t, but your change is
fine.

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc:366: appended =
snprintf(buffer_ + cursor_, size_ - cursor_, "%"PRIx64, v);
We'll eventually, probably, need to add a space between the "%" and the macro to
avoid a collision with user-defined literals. No need to do this now, and it's
possible the language will fix the problem in general.

[Dai Mikurube (NOT FULLTIME), 2013-05-10 09:45:53]

Thanks for the comments, Jeffrey.  I'll be committing it.

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
File third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc:363: bool
DeepHeapProfile::TextBuffer::AppendPtr(uint64 v, int d) {
On 2013/05/10 00:52:08, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Another possible fix would be to change this to uintptr_t, but your change is
> fine.

Yeah, it might be better, but we decided to use uint64 for pointers since some
existing code in third_party tcmalloc use uint64 for pointers (e.g.
base/sysinfo.cc:ProcMaps-).

https://codereview.chromium.org/14859006/diff/2001/third_party/tcmalloc/chrom...
third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/deep-heap-profile.cc:366: appended =
snprintf(buffer_ + cursor_, size_ - cursor_, "%"PRIx64, v);
On 2013/05/10 00:52:08, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> We'll eventually, probably, need to add a space between the "%" and the macro
to
> avoid a collision with user-defined literals. No need to do this now, and it's
> possible the language will fix the problem in general.

Ok.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-10 09:48:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dmikurube@chromium.org/14859006/2001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-10 12:23:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/dmikurube@chromium.org/14859006/2001

[Dai Mikurube (NOT FULLTIME), 2013-05-10 13:23:27]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r199471 (presubmit successful).