Remove unnecessary static function

Remove unnecessary static function

Use gfx::CrossProduct() instead of defining a new static function.

BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=288372

[hj.r.chung, 2014-08-06 12:15:42]

this is a simple cleanup patch. ptal!

[danakj, 2014-08-06 13:45:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc
File cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc#new...
cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc:37: float denom = gfx::CrossProduct(u, v);
this method returns a double, so you'll get narrowing errors storing it directly
into a float. you'll have to cast it.

[hj.r.chung, 2014-08-07 01:55:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc
File cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc#new...
cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc:37: float denom = gfx::CrossProduct(u, v);
On 2014/08/06 13:45:55, danakj wrote:
> this method returns a double, so you'll get narrowing errors storing it
directly
> into a float. you'll have to cast it.

While looking into the code, I've found that there aren't any other callers for
CrossProduct(Vector2dF&, Vector2dF&). Do you think it will be ok to change
CrossProduct() to return float instead of double? Will there be any cases that
need double precision in the future?

[danakj, 2014-08-07 14:16:03]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM, <heejin.r.chung@samsung.com> wrote:

>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc
> File cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc (right):
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/
> layer_sorter.cc#newcode37
> cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc:37: float denom = gfx::CrossProduct(u, v);
> On 2014/08/06 13:45:55, danakj wrote:
>
>> this method returns a double, so you'll get narrowing errors storing
>>
> it directly
>
>> into a float. you'll have to cast it.
>>
>
> While looking into the code, I've found that there aren't any other
> callers for CrossProduct(Vector2dF&, Vector2dF&). Do you think it will
> be ok to change CrossProduct() to return float instead of double? Will
> there be any cases that need double precision in the future?


I think I'd rather just cast at your callsite for now.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[hj.r.chung, 2014-08-08 01:46:51]

On 2014/08/07 14:16:03, danakj wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM, <mailto:heejin.r.chung@samsung.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc
> > File cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc (right):
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/444983002/diff/1/cc/trees/
> > layer_sorter.cc#newcode37
> > cc/trees/layer_sorter.cc:37: float denom = gfx::CrossProduct(u, v);
> > On 2014/08/06 13:45:55, danakj wrote:
> >
> >> this method returns a double, so you'll get narrowing errors storing
> >>
> > it directly
> >
> >> into a float. you'll have to cast it.
> >>
> >
> > While looking into the code, I've found that there aren't any other
> > callers for CrossProduct(Vector2dF&, Vector2dF&). Do you think it will
> > be ok to change CrossProduct() to return float instead of double? Will
> > there be any cases that need double precision in the future?
> 
> 
> I think I'd rather just cast at your callsite for now.
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
> to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.


ok , thanks for the input
I uploaded a new patch, ptal

[danakj, 2014-08-08 13:37:13]

LGTM

[danakj, 2014-08-08 13:37:16]

The CQ bit was checked by danakj@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-08 13:38:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at

https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/heejin.r.chung@samsung.com/444983002/2...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-08-08 16:16:35]

Change committed as 288372

[hj.r.chung, 2014-08-09 01:28:46]

On 2014/08/08 13:37:13, danakj wrote:
> LGTM

thanks!

[danakj, 2014-08-14 17:39:14]

A revert of this CL (patchset #2) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/471113002/ by danakj@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: Perf regression, due to the method no longer being
inline, and using doubles instead of floats..