remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1930103003

Deleting APIs unused publicly.
TBR=reed@google.com

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/1b5dd884546d35ff0909168cbfeafd7f53225a97

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-28 21:43:17]

Description was changed from

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

BUG=skia:
==========

to

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-28 21:57:40]

Description was changed from

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

to

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead
code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-28 21:57:44]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 21:57:54]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1930103003/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1930103003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 21:59:08]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 21:59:08]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build-Ubuntu-GCC-x86_64-Release-Trybot on client.skia.compile (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu-GCC-x86...)

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-28 22:02:07]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 22:02:09]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1930103003/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1930103003/40001

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-28 22:06:38]

mtklein@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ brianosman@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 22:13:01]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-28 22:13:02]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[reed1, 2016-04-29 00:36:41]

reed@google.com changed reviewers:
+ reed@google.com

[reed1, 2016-04-29 00:36:41]

Not saying we have to keep it, but it allows us to not have the size/check N
times if the caller knows he's going to write N values. In my mind its a little
like allocating a (private) struct: call once to get the memory, and then
scribble into it.

That said, if we find it harder to read/maintain, we can remove it and wait and
see if another need arises in the future.

[Brian Osman, 2016-04-29 13:04:46]

lgtm

[mtklein, 2016-04-29 15:25:03]

On 2016/04/29 at 00:36:41, reed wrote:
> Not saying we have to keep it, but it allows us to not have the size/check N
times if the caller knows he's going to write N values. In my mind its a little
like allocating a (private) struct: call once to get the memory, and then
scribble into it.
> 
> That said, if we find it harder to read/maintain, we can remove it and wait
and see if another need arises in the future.

writeByteArray() can still handle this private struct use case.

The main reason I'm happy to get rid of reserve() is that it's the only call
that splits the write call in half with a pointer, letting you write the bytes
perhaps long after you allocated space for them.  Nothing needs that
delayed-write feature any more, and it constrains how we can correctly allocate
that memory.

[mtklein, 2016-04-29 15:25:36]

Description was changed from

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead
code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

to

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead
code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...

Deleting APIs unused publicly.
TBR=reed@google.com
==========

[mtklein_C, 2016-04-29 15:45:40]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-29 15:45:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1930103003/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1930103003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-29 15:46:43]

Description was changed from

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead
code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...

Deleting APIs unused publicly.
TBR=reed@google.com
==========

to

==========
remove SkWriteBuffer::reserve()

We're not using it for anything that we can't do using the clearer
writeFoo()/readFoo() methods.

The deletions in SkPictureFlat.{h,cpp} and BitmapHeapTest.cpp clean up dead
code.
This code has not been used for a long time.  I happened to notice it because it
was another caller of reserve() (in a terrifyingly hacking/interesting way that 
I bet we'll find I authored...)

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...

Deleting APIs unused publicly.
TBR=reed@google.com

Committed:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/1b5dd884546d35ff0909168cbfeafd7f53225a97
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-04-29 15:46:44]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/1b5dd884546d35ff0909168cbfeafd7f53225a97

[mtklein, 2016-04-29 16:11:05]

On 2016/04/29 at 15:25:03, mtklein wrote:
> On 2016/04/29 at 00:36:41, reed wrote:
> > Not saying we have to keep it, but it allows us to not have the size/check N
times if the caller knows he's going to write N values. In my mind its a little
like allocating a (private) struct: call once to get the memory, and then
scribble into it.
> > 
> > That said, if we find it harder to read/maintain, we can remove it and wait
and see if another need arises in the future.
> 
> writeByteArray() can still handle this private struct use case.
> 
> The main reason I'm happy to get rid of reserve() is that it's the only call
that splits the write call in half with a pointer, letting you write the bytes
perhaps long after you allocated space for them.  Nothing needs that
delayed-write feature any more, and it constrains how we can correctly allocate
that memory.

Looking again, writeByteArray() is not quite the same... it also writes the
array size.  But I do agree, if we need this ability to write a private struct,
we can add it back, ideally as a single-step writeStruct(const void*, size_t).