Allocator cleanup: move tcmalloc-specific calls to base

third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h

Index: third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h
diff --git a/third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h b/third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h
index 501abd6a06a4a6f562885749067fdb666195e54f..e62ce7a2a11de2aaf37e1fa02aad8351c6bce55e 100644
--- a/third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h
+++ b/third_party/tcmalloc/chromium/src/gperftools/tcmalloc.h
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ extern "C" {
                                             const char** patch) __THROW;
 
   PERFTOOLS_DLL_DECL void* tc_malloc(size_t size) __THROW;
+  PERFTOOLS_DLL_DECL void* tc_malloc_skip_new_handler(size_t size);

[Will Harris, 2016/01/21 17:56:34]

now this is a first class exported API from tcmalloc, called from base I feel it
should be exposed from a different place. It seems weird to expose this via the
gperftools api. if base always will depend on allocator then none of the weak
symbols will be ever needed, and instead we should have a clean API from base
into the allocator, no?

[Primiano Tucci (use gerrit), 2016/01/21 18:01:09]

Right. So let me see if I'm getting it right. Are you suggesting to not expose
an API but just fwd declare from base and use it there?

My long-term plan is the following:
once we have a unified shim layer API [1], the "malloc behaves like new" should
be done at the shim layer level, not at the allocator level. In that case, we'd
have an unchecked_malloc directly in the shim layer API, instead of punching
holes (and forking) tcmalloc.
But I'd like to first cleanup the current situation and think to the shim API
later.

Maybe an internal fwd declaration in base is the best interim solution?


[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKlO1AO4XjpDad9rjcBOI15EKdAGsuGO_IeZy0g0k...

   PERFTOOLS_DLL_DECL void tc_free(void* ptr) __THROW;
   PERFTOOLS_DLL_DECL void* tc_realloc(void* ptr, size_t size) __THROW;
   PERFTOOLS_DLL_DECL void* tc_calloc(size_t nmemb, size_t size) __THROW;