Clarify function info object usage in the command buffer generator

Clarify function info object usage in the command buffer generator

Before, the Function objects (roughly corresponding to the commands
being generated) would construct itself based on the function info
object, parsed properties and many argument lists. The argument lists
themselves were also constructed out of function info object and the
parsed properties.

Try to clarify this by following changes.

Define that function info object is first parsed from the
cmd_buffer_functions.txt file.

Then the function info is possibly augmented by the optional object
for the function info object table (_FUNCTION_INFO).

Function objects are created solely on the function info
object. Function constructor parses the function info object and
constructs the needed properties, such as function type handlers,
argument arrays and return value types.

Function provides simple initialization function that the immediate and
bucket subclasses can use to construct specialized versions of the
command buffer command argument lists.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=270051

[Kimmo Kinnunen, 2014-05-09 07:46:23]

This is a pure "refactoring", no functional change. Feel free to ignore it if
this sort of stuff is not wanted.

Personally, I struggle a bit with the responsibilities and reasons for existence
of function info objects, FunctionInfo class, Function class and the argument
lists passed to Function constructors. This change tries to clarify and simplify
the code..

[vmiura, 2014-05-09 19:05:02]

On 2014/05/09 07:46:23, kkinnunen wrote:
> This is a pure "refactoring", no functional change. Feel free to ignore it if
> this sort of stuff is not wanted.
> 
> Personally, I struggle a bit with the responsibilities and reasons for
existence
> of function info objects, FunctionInfo class, Function class and the argument
> lists passed to Function constructors. This change tries to clarify and
simplify
> the code..

Thanks for doing this.  I think it's a good refactoring.

[vmiura, 2014-05-09 19:07:55]

LGTM!

[piman, 2014-05-09 19:55:51]

lgtm

[Zhenyao Mo, 2014-05-09 21:19:47]

LGTM

[Kimmo Kinnunen, 2014-05-12 10:37:48]

The CQ bit was checked by kkinnunen@nvidia.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-12 10:38:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/kkinnunen@nvidia.com/276873002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-12 11:01:55]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  android_aosp on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_aosp/builds/7...)
  android_chromium_gn_compile_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_chromium_gn_c...)
  android_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_clang_dbg/bui...)
  android_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/android_dbg/builds/18...)
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/chromium_presubmit/bu...)
  ios_dbg_simulator on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/ios_dbg_simulator/bui...)
  ios_rel_device on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/ios_rel_device/builds...)
  ios_rel_device_ninja on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/ios_rel_device_ninja/...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)
  mac_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_compile_...)
  mac_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/mac_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_compile_...)
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-12 11:04:49]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-12 11:04:50]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_chrome...)
  linux_chromium_clang_dbg on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_clang_...)
  linux_chromium_gn_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_gn_rel...)
  linux_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/linux_chromium_rel/bu...)

[Kimmo Kinnunen, 2014-05-13 04:37:30]

The CQ bit was checked by kkinnunen@nvidia.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-13 04:38:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/kkinnunen@nvidia.com/276873002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-13 08:27:26]

Change committed as 270051