[blink]: Annotate StringImpl::createStatic leak for LeakSanitizer.

[blink]: Annotate StringImpl::createStatic leak for LeakSanitizer.

Adding the annotation WTF_ANNOTATE_SCOPED_MEMORY_LEAK in StringImpl::createStatic to ensure leak sanitizer doesn't report this as a leak.
This patch just handles Leak Sanitizer only. The changes for Heap Checker will be done in a follow up patch.

BUG=268258
TEST=Running content_unittests with Leak Sanitizer enabled.
Output of Leak Sanitizer before the fix: http://pastebin.com/niDgRNAQ
Output of Leak Sanitizer after the fix: http://pastebin.com/v6hF43Lj

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=157315

[r.kasibhatla, 2013-09-03 15:32:26]

This is just a preliminary patch. If the tone of changes is ok, then I will be
making the changes for heap-checker as well.

[abarth-chromium, 2013-09-03 15:40:12]

Seems fine.  There are some style issues, but we can clean those up when you're
ready for a real review.

[earthdok, 2013-09-03 16:12:36]

Generally this looks OK. Just make sure to never include this file in any public
headers (or we will have duplicate declaration errors).

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/1/Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp
File Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/1/Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cp...
Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp:344: 
Personally I prefer to put this in a dedicated scope:

{
  ANNOTATE_SCOPED_MEMORY_LEAK;
  impl = new ...;
}

It's better for readability, and avoids applying the annotation too broadly.

[r.kasibhatla, 2013-09-04 13:26:19]

PTAL. Thanks.

[earthdok, 2013-09-04 13:43:00]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h
File Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:54: #ifdef __cplusplus
Isn't this always true? We have C++ code below anyway.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:64: class WTFLeakSanitizerDisabler {
Disallow copy and assign.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:80: #define WTF_ANNOTATE_LEAKING_OBJECT_PTR(X)
__lsan_ignore_object(X);
Nit: don't need the semicolon here.

[r.kasibhatla, 2013-09-04 14:35:43]

On 2013/09/04 13:43:00, earthdok wrote:
> lgtm
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h
> File Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:54: #ifdef __cplusplus
> Isn't this always true? We have C++ code below anyway.
Agreed, but blink style follows #ifdef __cplusplus for any extern "C".
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:64: class WTFLeakSanitizerDisabler {
> Disallow copy and assign.
Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/23001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:80: #define WTF_ANNOTATE_LEAKING_OBJECT_PTR(X)
> __lsan_ignore_object(X);
> Nit: don't need the semicolon here.
Done.

[abarth-chromium, 2013-09-04 17:34:15]

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h
File Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:49: */
We typically use //-style comments (except for the license block)

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:56: #ifdef __cplusplus
We generally assume C++ for WTF headers.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:66: class WTFLeakSanitizerDisabler {
Rather than putting WTF into the name of this class, we should put this class in
the WTF namespace.

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/text/StringImp...
File Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/text/StringImp...
Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp:350: {
I don't think we need this inner scope.  There's only one memory allocation
below this call frame.

[r.kasibhatla, 2013-09-05 07:43:47]

On 2013/09/04 17:34:15, abarth wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h
> File Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:49: */
> We typically use //-style comments (except for the license block)
Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:56: #ifdef __cplusplus
> We generally assume C++ for WTF headers.
Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/LeakAnnotation...
> Source/wtf/LeakAnnotations.h:66: class WTFLeakSanitizerDisabler {
> Rather than putting WTF into the name of this class, we should put this class
in
> the WTF namespace.
Done.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/text/StringImp...
> File Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/23901002/diff/29001/Source/wtf/text/StringImp...
> Source/wtf/text/StringImpl.cpp:350: {
> I don't think we need this inner scope.  There's only one memory allocation
> below this call frame.
Done.

[abarth-chromium, 2013-09-05 17:27:26]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-05 17:27:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/r.kasibhatla@samsung.com/23901002/34001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-09-05 18:22:29]

Change committed as 157315