Remove GrIsPow2 in favor of SkIsPow2.

Remove GrIsPow2 in favor of SkIsPow2.

Looks like there is no good reason to have two copies of this function
doing the same thing with different name.

BUG=None
TEST=make tests
R=bsalomon@google.com

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/f9dae780c2c46a1f08adbbe8de2faaba091254d4

[tfarina, 2014-06-05 03:48:33]

Is this OK?

(please, do not cq box).

Thanks,

[bsalomon, 2014-06-05 13:30:47]

It looks good, but how do you plan to commit this?

[mtklein, 2014-06-05 13:32:16]

On 2014/06/05 13:30:47, bsalomon wrote:
> It looks good, but how do you plan to commit this?

Thiago, now that we've switched to Git, using the commit queue properly
attributes the CL to you, not commit-bot.  Please use the CQ.

[tfarina, 2014-06-05 14:30:21]

On 2014/06/05 13:32:16, mtklein wrote:
> On 2014/06/05 13:30:47, bsalomon wrote:
> > It looks good, but how do you plan to commit this?
> 
> Thiago, now that we've switched to Git, using the commit queue properly
> attributes the CL to you, not commit-bot.  Please use the CQ.

I will be happy when committer is also set to us, currently it is set to
commit-bot@chromium.org.

Example:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/9c4ff80d9b76e1bda532fb9182f66f67cfc95324

[mtklein, 2014-06-05 14:33:26]

On 2014/06/05 14:30:21, tfarina wrote:
> On 2014/06/05 13:32:16, mtklein wrote:
> > On 2014/06/05 13:30:47, bsalomon wrote:
> > > It looks good, but how do you plan to commit this?
> > 
> > Thiago, now that we've switched to Git, using the commit queue properly
> > attributes the CL to you, not commit-bot.  Please use the CQ.
> 
> I will be happy when committer is also set to us, currently it is set to
> mailto:commit-bot@chromium.org.
> 
> Example:
> https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/9c4ff80d9b76e1bda532fb9182f66f67cfc95324

Sorry Thiago, this is not optional.  You can use the CQ to submit your CL with
commit-bot as the commiter and you as the author, or not submit it.

[tfarina, 2014-06-06 02:07:15]

Reopening.

Brian, I had a long discussion with Robert Iannucci today about the committer vs
author issue I was having in this Git transition and I'm starting to accept the
idea that the committer will be commit-bot@chromium.org, because the idea is
that when you push your CL through CQ, it is committing on your behalf, but the
author is you (the *author* of the code). So, yeah, while I'm used to
svn-dcommit model, I think I can adapt and start accepting the git-push
author/committer difference.

I don't like it entirely yet, but I will have to live with it, like it or not,
because it seems Chromium will move to this as well after it migrates to Git
too.

With that said, could you give me your approval? Then either you click the cq
box or I will check it later.

Thanks.

[mtklein, 2014-06-06 02:33:42]

On 2014/06/06 02:07:15, tfarina wrote:
> Reopening.
> 
> Brian, I had a long discussion with Robert Iannucci today about the committer
vs
> author issue I was having in this Git transition and I'm starting to accept
the
> idea that the committer will be mailto:commit-bot@chromium.org, because the
idea is
> that when you push your CL through CQ, it is committing on your behalf, but
the
> author is you (the *author* of the code). So, yeah, while I'm used to
> svn-dcommit model, I think I can adapt and start accepting the git-push
> author/committer difference.
> 
> I don't like it entirely yet, but I will have to live with it, like it or not,
> because it seems Chromium will move to this as well after it migrates to Git
> too.
> 
> With that said, could you give me your approval? Then either you click the cq
> box or I will check it later.
> 
> Thanks.

Thanks for adapting Thiago.

[bsalomon, 2014-06-06 12:56:17]

lgtm

Glad to hear it, Thiago. Authorship matters a lot more than "comittership".

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 12:56:56]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/tfarina@chromium.org/318873002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-06 13:35:32]

Change committed as f9dae780c2c46a1f08adbbe8de2faaba091254d4

[scroggo, 2014-06-09 14:40:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/318873002/diff/1/include/gpu/GrTypes.h
File include/gpu/GrTypes.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/318873002/diff/1/include/gpu/GrTypes.h#oldcod...
include/gpu/GrTypes.h:157: return n && 0 == (n & (n - 1));
Not sure whether it makes a difference to any of the callers, but this does
slightly change the behavior: GrIsPow2 returns false for 0, but SkIsPow2 returns
true.

[bsalomon, 2014-06-09 14:54:52]

On 2014/06/09 14:40:56, scroggo wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/318873002/diff/1/include/gpu/GrTypes.h
> File include/gpu/GrTypes.h (left):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/318873002/diff/1/include/gpu/GrTypes.h#oldcod...
> include/gpu/GrTypes.h:157: return n && 0 == (n & (n - 1));
> Not sure whether it makes a difference to any of the callers, but this does
> slightly change the behavior: GrIsPow2 returns false for 0, but SkIsPow2
returns
> true.

Yes, I checked that. They should all be fine.