Remove base's ALIGNOF/ALIGNAS in favor of alignof/alignas.

base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc

Index: base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
diff --git a/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc b/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
index abe0cf3ff5739ccc7443d4e15f45fa89461d6a4d..91c8ae6eabc62b401b9a9f530484f5d45f0fcc95 100644
--- a/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
+++ b/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
@@ -19,35 +19,47 @@ using base::AlignedMemory;
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, StaticAlignment) {
   static AlignedMemory<8, 8> raw8;
   static AlignedMemory<8, 16> raw16;
+// GCC doesn't like alignment >64 on ARM.

[danakj, 2017/02/08 21:29:47]

Same Q. Should we test 64 instead?

[dcheng, 2017/02/09 00:01:24]

Done.

+#if !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
   static AlignedMemory<8, 256> raw256;
   static AlignedMemory<8, 4096> raw4096;
+#endif
 
-  EXPECT_EQ(8u, ALIGNOF(raw8));
-  EXPECT_EQ(16u, ALIGNOF(raw16));
-  EXPECT_EQ(256u, ALIGNOF(raw256));
-  EXPECT_EQ(4096u, ALIGNOF(raw4096));
+  EXPECT_EQ(8u, alignof(decltype(raw8)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(16u, alignof(decltype(raw16)));
 
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw8.void_data(), 8);
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw16.void_data(), 16);
+
+// GCC doesn't like alignment >64 on ARM.
+#if !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
+  EXPECT_EQ(256u, alignof(decltype(raw256)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(4096u, alignof(decltype(raw4096)));
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw256.void_data(), 256);
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw4096.void_data(), 4096);
+#endif
 }
 
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, StackAlignment) {
   AlignedMemory<8, 8> raw8;
   AlignedMemory<8, 16> raw16;
+// GCC doesn't like alignment >64 on ARM.
+#if !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
   AlignedMemory<8, 128> raw128;
+#endif
 
-  EXPECT_EQ(8u, ALIGNOF(raw8));
-  EXPECT_EQ(16u, ALIGNOF(raw16));
-  EXPECT_EQ(128u, ALIGNOF(raw128));
+  EXPECT_EQ(8u, alignof(decltype(raw8)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(16u, alignof(decltype(raw16)));
+// GCC doesn't like alignment >64 on ARM.
+#if !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
+  EXPECT_EQ(128u, alignof(decltype(raw128)));
+#endif
 
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw8.void_data(), 8);
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw16.void_data(), 16);
 
-  // TODO(ios): __attribute__((aligned(X))) with X >= 128 does not works on
-  // the stack when building for arm64 on iOS, http://crbug.com/349003
-#if !(defined(OS_IOS) && defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM64))
+// GCC doesn't like alignment >64 on ARM.
+#if !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw128.void_data(), 128);
 
   // NaCl x86-64 compiler emits non-validating instructions for >128
@@ -58,17 +70,14 @@ TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, StackAlignment) {
   // https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3463
 #if !(defined(OS_NACL) && defined(ARCH_CPU_X86_64))
   AlignedMemory<8, 256> raw256;
-  EXPECT_EQ(256u, ALIGNOF(raw256));
+  EXPECT_EQ(256u, alignof(decltype(raw256)));
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw256.void_data(), 256);
 
-  // TODO(ios): This test hits an armv7 bug in clang. crbug.com/138066
-#if !(defined(OS_IOS) && defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY))
   AlignedMemory<8, 4096> raw4096;
-  EXPECT_EQ(4096u, ALIGNOF(raw4096));
+  EXPECT_EQ(4096u, alignof(decltype(raw4096)));
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw4096.void_data(), 4096);
-#endif  // !(defined(OS_IOS) && defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY))
 #endif  // !(defined(OS_NACL) && defined(ARCH_CPU_X86_64))
-#endif  // !(defined(OS_IOS) && defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM64))
+#endif  // !defined(ARCH_CPU_ARM_FAMILY) || defined(__clang__)
 }
 
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, DynamicAllocation) {