Move platform abstraction to base library

Move platform abstraction to base library

Also split v8-core independent methods from checks.h to base/logging.h and
merge v8checks with the rest of checks.

The CPU::FlushICache method is moved to CpuFeatures::FlushICache

RoundUp and related methods are moved to base/macros.h

Remove all layering violations from src/libplatform

BUG=none
R=jkummerow@chromium.org
LOG=n

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-06-30 11:51:11]

ptal

I'll fix the windows compile errors soon(ish)

[Jakob Kummerow, 2014-06-30 13:02:34]

LGTM with comments.

You should train yourself a monkey to review this kind of patches. (And don't
you dare reply that you're training /me/!)

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/20001/src/base/platform/platfo...
File src/base/platform/platform.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/20001/src/base/platform/platfo...
src/base/platform/platform.h:385: void TakeControl(base::VirtualMemory* from) {
why do we need "base::" here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/20001/src/dtoa.cc
File src/dtoa.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/20001/src/dtoa.cc#newcode8
src/dtoa.cc:8: #include "src/base/logging.h"
interesting interpretation of the concept of "alpha-sorting" in this file (and
other dtoa related files) :-)

[tfarina, 2014-07-01 15:54:30]

Jochen, isn't there a bug filed for tracking this work?

I guess we have one and we could have filled it in the BUG=v8: line.

[tfarina, 2014-07-01 15:58:30]

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/cpu.h
File src/base/cpu.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/cpu.h#newcode46
src/base/cpu.h:46: static const int ARM = 0x41;
we could group these 'static const' before the ctor per style guide.

and maybe turn it in an enum to avoid the repetition of 'static const int'

[tfarina, 2014-07-01 16:01:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/macros.h
File src/base/macros.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/macros.h#newcod...
src/base/macros.h:122: return IS_POWER_OF_TWO(x);
Do we need to have the macro version?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-07-01 18:55:11]

there's issue 3015, but since there's no bugdroid it's kinda moot

thx for the suggestions. In this CL, I'm purely moving code around, and not
changing it.

[Sven Panne, 2014-07-02 08:18:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/macros.h
File src/base/macros.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/358363002/diff/40001/src/base/macros.h#newcod...
src/base/macros.h:122: return IS_POWER_OF_TWO(x);
On 2014/07/01 16:01:32, tfarina wrote:
> Do we need to have the macro version?

Yes, because it is used in STATIC_ASSERTs. When we have C++ 11, we can
inline+nuke the macro...

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-07-02 09:26:39]

btw, this has landed as
https://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge@22092 but git cl didn't
manage to update this cl...