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..8c82a0351f576b9d6196b8163c96108d9db05ccc 100644
--- a/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
+++ b/base/memory/aligned_memory_unittest.cc
@@ -16,59 +16,43 @@ namespace {
 
 using base::AlignedMemory;
 
+// Note: there are a number of compatibility issues with large alignments.
+// On ARM, gcc doesn't support alignment >64 bytes. In addition, the NaCl x86-64
+// compiler emits non-validating instructions for >128 bytes alignment. See
+// https://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/design-documents/nacl-sfi-model-on-x86-64-systems
+// and https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3463
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, StaticAlignment) {
   static AlignedMemory<8, 8> raw8;
   static AlignedMemory<8, 16> raw16;
-  static AlignedMemory<8, 256> raw256;
-  static AlignedMemory<8, 4096> raw4096;
+  static AlignedMemory<8, 32> raw32;
+  static AlignedMemory<8, 64> raw64;
 
-  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_EQ(32u, alignof(decltype(raw32)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(64u, alignof(decltype(raw64)));
 
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw8.void_data(), 8);
   EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw16.void_data(), 16);
-  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw256.void_data(), 256);
-  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw4096.void_data(), 4096);
+  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw32.void_data(), 32);
+  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw64.void_data(), 64);
 }
 
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, StackAlignment) {
   AlignedMemory<8, 8> raw8;
   AlignedMemory<8, 16> raw16;
-  AlignedMemory<8, 128> raw128;
+  AlignedMemory<8, 32> raw32;
+  AlignedMemory<8, 64> raw64;
 
-  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)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(32u, alignof(decltype(raw32)));
+  EXPECT_EQ(64u, alignof(decltype(raw64)));
 
   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))
-  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw128.void_data(), 128);
-
-  // NaCl x86-64 compiler emits non-validating instructions for >128
-  // bytes alignment.
-  // http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/design-documents/nacl-sfi-model-on-x86-64-systems
-  // TODO(hamaji): Ideally, NaCl compiler for x86-64 should workaround
-  // this limitation and this #if should be removed.
-  // 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_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_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))
+  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw32.void_data(), 32);
+  EXPECT_ALIGNED(raw64.void_data(), 64);
 }
 
 TEST(AlignedMemoryTest, DynamicAllocation) {