Mojo: Split public/cpp/system/core.h into pieces

Mojo: Split public/cpp/system/core.h into pieces

It is divided into buffer.h, date_pipe.h, functions.h, handles.h,
macros.h and message_pipe.h.

BUG=386803
TEST=none
R=viettrungluu@chromium.org, darin@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=283337

[viettrungluu, 2014-07-15 00:44:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/c/system/core.h
File mojo/public/c/system/core.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/c/system/core.h#...
mojo/public/c/system/core.h:15: #include "mojo/public/c/system/macros.h"
Please don't remove this. We shouldn't rely on transitive includes, unless the
transitive inclusion is somehow implied by something else in the header.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h
File mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/buffe...
mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h:23:
MOJO_COMPILE_ASSERT(sizeof(SharedBufferHandle) == sizeof(Handle),
I'd prefer that you not rely on the transitive inclusion, and explicitly include
an appropriate macros.h.

(It's probably reasonable to rely on cpp/system/macros.h including
c/system/macros.h; probably this transitive inclusion should be documented as
such.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h
File mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/macro...
mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h:8: #include <assert.h>
Why this include?

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/macro...
mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h:11: #include
"mojo/public/c/system/system_export.h"
And this?

[Hajime Morrita, 2014-07-15 17:38:15]

Thank you for the review Trung!
Could you take another look?

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/c/system/core.h
File mojo/public/c/system/core.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/c/system/core.h#...
mojo/public/c/system/core.h:15: #include "mojo/public/c/system/macros.h"
On 2014/07/15 00:44:09, viettrungluu wrote:
> Please don't remove this. We shouldn't rely on transitive includes, unless the
> transitive inclusion is somehow implied by something else in the header.

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h
File mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/buffe...
mojo/public/cpp/system/buffer.h:23:
MOJO_COMPILE_ASSERT(sizeof(SharedBufferHandle) == sizeof(Handle),
On 2014/07/15 00:44:09, viettrungluu wrote:
> I'd prefer that you not rely on the transitive inclusion, and explicitly
include
> an appropriate macros.h.
> 
> (It's probably reasonable to rely on cpp/system/macros.h including
> c/system/macros.h; probably this transitive inclusion should be documented as
> such.)
Makes sense. I added a comment on macros.h about the transitivity.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h
File mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/1/mojo/public/cpp/system/macro...
mojo/public/cpp/system/macros.h:11: #include
"mojo/public/c/system/system_export.h"
On 2014/07/15 00:44:09, viettrungluu wrote:
> And this?

Moved these to their clients based on the IWYU policy.

[viettrungluu, 2014-07-15 18:06:14]

Thanks. LGTM w/nits.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/c/system/core.h
File mojo/public/c/system/core.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/c/system/cor...
mojo/public/c/system/core.h:15: #include "mojo/public/c/system/macros.h"
Could you please restore this include? (core.h by definition includes
everything.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/cpp/system/d...
File mojo/public/cpp/system/data_pipe.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/cpp/system/d...
mojo/public/cpp/system/data_pipe.h:1: // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors.
All rights reserved.
I guess new files should have "2014" as the date. <shrug>

[Hajime Morrita, 2014-07-15 18:22:01]

Thanks! Landing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/c/system/core.h
File mojo/public/c/system/core.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/c/system/cor...
mojo/public/c/system/core.h:15: #include "mojo/public/c/system/macros.h"
On 2014/07/15 18:06:14, viettrungluu wrote:
> Could you please restore this include? (core.h by definition includes
> everything.)
Oops. Doe.

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/cpp/system/d...
File mojo/public/cpp/system/data_pipe.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/392783006/diff/20001/mojo/public/cpp/system/d...
mojo/public/cpp/system/data_pipe.h:1: // Copyright 2013 The Chromium Authors.
All rights reserved.
On 2014/07/15 18:06:14, viettrungluu wrote:
> I guess new files should have "2014" as the date. <shrug>
I need better calendar in my mind :-(

[Hajime Morrita, 2014-07-15 18:22:11]

The CQ bit was checked by morrita@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-15 18:24:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/morrita@chromium.org/392783006/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-16 04:44:12]

Change committed as 283337