Don't pull in content_switches.cc to whole chrome code base

Don't pull in content_switches.cc to whole chrome code base

The point of this change is remove compilation of content_switches.cc
that was done in installer_util target. This is a static library
that other parts of chrome pull in and that makes the Chrome code that
references those switches compile even if the switches itself are
not exported.
Installer_util doesn't even seem to uses those switches AFAIK.

Dropped compilation of these files so these problems are actually
exposed and addressed by the person adding the switch. The main
offender that referenced those switches was chrome's about_flags.cc.

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=226921

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-09-27 08:40:00]

No idea who should I CC on this so please help with adding appropriate
reviewers.

BTW. I expect that there might be more linking issues that need to be fixed. I'm
just not able to test all possible combinations myself.

Maybe all switches in content_switches.cc should be exported. That would
probably handle most of these issues.

[jam, 2013-09-27 20:03:58]

lgtm. if this doesn't break any try or build bots, great!

regarding exporting all the flags: one benefit is that we now know which flags
aren't used by embedders. ideally, but no one has gotten around to it, we would
hide the flags that are used internally only by content inside content, i.e. in
content\common\content_switches_internal.h

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#newcode31
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:31: '<(DEPTH)/content/public/common/content_switches.h',
nit: drop the header, no need since it's included elsewhere

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-09-28 10:05:39]

On 2013/09/27 20:03:58, jam wrote:
> lgtm. if this doesn't break any try or build bots, great!

I expect that it might break some as I can't test all configurations myself
(android, for example). So I need someone to trigger build bots for me (I don't
have sufficient permissions).

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-09-28 10:05:47]

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#newcode31
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:31: '<(DEPTH)/content/public/common/content_switches.h',
On 2013/09/27 20:03:58, jam wrote:
> nit: drop the header, no need since it's included elsewhere

What do you mean that it's included elsewhere?
I thought that pretty much the only reason headers are added to the list of
files is so that IDEs (thinking of Visual Studio primarily) can recognize that
the file is used by the target.

[jam, 2013-10-01 16:13:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/1/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#newcode31
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:31: '<(DEPTH)/content/public/common/content_switches.h',
On 2013/09/28 10:05:47, Rafał Chłodnicki wrote:
> On 2013/09/27 20:03:58, jam wrote:
> > nit: drop the header, no need since it's included elsewhere
> 
> What do you mean that it's included elsewhere?
> I thought that pretty much the only reason headers are added to the list of
> files is so that IDEs (thinking of Visual Studio primarily) can recognize that
> the file is used by the target.

I mean content_switches.h is by definition included in target in content. So if
another module outside needs the cc file, it doesn't need to relist the .h since
the IDE will already be able to find that header.

[jam, 2013-10-01 16:13:45]

On 2013/09/28 10:05:39, Rafał Chłodnicki wrote:
> On 2013/09/27 20:03:58, jam wrote:
> > lgtm. if this doesn't break any try or build bots, great!
> 
> I expect that it might break some as I can't test all configurations myself
> (android, for example). So I need someone to trigger build bots for me (I
don't
> have sufficient permissions).

ok i'll hit the CQ button and we'll see

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-01 16:14:09]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rchlodnicki@opera.com/24994002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-01 16:54:48]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on linux_clang.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_clan...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-10-01 18:38:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:585: '../content/content.gyp:content_common',
Alternatively I could just add content_switches to sources. Not sure what is
better. This will certainly pull in more code.

[jam, 2013-10-03 00:34:35]

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:585: '../content/content.gyp:content_common',
On 2013/10/01 18:38:17, Rafał Chłodnicki wrote:
> Alternatively I could just add content_switches to sources. Not sure what is
> better. This will certainly pull in more code.

probably best to leave as before (i.e. pulling in content_swithces.cc) instead
of all of content_common

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-10-03 08:33:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi
File chrome/chrome_exe.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/24994002/diff/32001/chrome/chrome_exe.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_exe.gypi:585: '../content/content.gyp:content_common',
On 2013/10/03 00:34:36, jam wrote:
> On 2013/10/01 18:38:17, Rafał Chłodnicki wrote:
> > Alternatively I could just add content_switches to sources. Not sure what is
> > better. This will certainly pull in more code.
> 
> probably best to leave as before (i.e. pulling in content_swithces.cc) instead
> of all of content_common

Done.

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-10-03 08:35:52]

There is a conflict when rebasing to master so I need to fix that first before
trying bots.

[Rafał Chłodnicki, 2013-10-03 08:59:00]

On 2013/10/03 08:35:52, Rafał Chłodnicki wrote:
> There is a conflict when rebasing to master so I need to fix that first before
> trying bots.

rebased

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-03 21:28:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/rchlodnicki@opera.com/24994002/45001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-04 01:25:20]

Change committed as 226921