[Memory Sheriff] Force a well-defined path for system leak.

ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm

Index: ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm
diff --git a/ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm b/ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm
index bae4af88820488838acc93defecff49d2fe8255d..38a2b935bed48b34749bd6fccd4040eb3be7e6e7 100644
--- a/ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm
+++ b/ui/gfx/test/ui_cocoa_test_helper.mm
@@ -9,6 +9,20 @@
 #include "base/stl_util.h"
 #include "base/test/test_timeouts.h"
 
+namespace {
+
+// Some AppKit function leak intentionally, e.g. for caching purposes.
+// Force those leaks here, so there can be a unique calling path, allowing
+// to flag intentional leaks without having to suppress all calls to
+// potentially leaky functions.
+void NOINLINE ForceSystemLeaks() {
+  // First NSCursor push always leaks.
+  [[NSCursor openHandCursor] push];
+  [NSCursor pop];
+}
+
+}  // namespace.
+
 @implementation CocoaTestHelperWindow
 
 - (id)initWithContentRect:(NSRect)contentRect {
@@ -76,6 +90,8 @@ void CocoaTest::Init() {
   // that we don't wait for them to close in TearDown. Has to be done
   // after BootstrapCocoa is called.
   initial_windows_ = ApplicationWindows();
+
+  ForceSystemLeaks();

[Scott Hess - ex-Googler, 2014/05/30 23:58:06]

Stepping back and putting on my "What would another reviewer say?" cap, I find
myself wondering if this shouldn't be at the top of the function?

[groby-ooo-7-16, 2014/05/31 00:37:04]

Moved to top of ctor.

 }
 
 void CocoaTest::TearDown() {