Oilpan: GC profiling.

Source/build/features.gypi

Index: Source/build/features.gypi
diff --git a/Source/build/features.gypi b/Source/build/features.gypi
index d340677e7b98e44f4f661e1e1643738a7db60ce1..c8199e573f8036dbbc899aa0088d93b092240d7b 100644
--- a/Source/build/features.gypi
+++ b/Source/build/features.gypi
@@ -43,7 +43,8 @@
     'variables': {
       # Enables the Oilpan garbage-collection infrastructure.
       'enable_oilpan%': 0,
-      'gc_tracing%': 0
+      'gc_profile_heap%': 0,
+      'gc_profile_marking%': 0
     },
     'conditions': [
       ['use_concatenated_impulse_responses==1', {
@@ -86,9 +87,16 @@
           'ENABLE_OILPAN=1',
         ],
       }],
-      ['gc_tracing==1', {
+      ['gc_profile_heap==1', {
         'feature_defines': [
-          'ENABLE_GC_TRACING=1',
+          'ENABLE_GC_PROFILING=1',
+          'ENABLE_GC_PROFILING_HEAP=1',

[haraken, 2014/07/14 02:26:14]

Given that we use ENABLE_OILPAN, shall we use ENABLE_OILPAN_PROFILING_HEAP and
ENABLE_OILPAN_PROFILING_MARKING ?

[zerny-chromium, 2014/07/28 11:54:41]

I don't think so. Oilpan is the project code name and should eventually not
appear in the code at all. It is also badly named since it really only affects
transition types. I think using 'GC' is better here since these will stay (just
as for the plugin).

+        ],
+      }],
+      ['gc_profile_marking==1', {
+        'feature_defines': [
+          'ENABLE_GC_PROFILING=1',
+          'ENABLE_GC_PROFILING_MARKING=1',
         ],
       }],
     ],