Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
594423002:
Cleanup. (Closed)
|
Created:
6 years, 2 months ago by Peter Kasting Modified:
6 years, 2 months ago CC:
chromium-reviews, erikwright+watch_chromium.org Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master Project:
chromium Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionCleanup.
Also fixes an apparent (and inconsequential) leak in GDIBitmapAllocFailure(). (We're going to die anyway so it doesn't really matter.)
BUG=none
TEST=none
Committed: https://crrev.com/767ea6b133ce5e1818ac6f41c6210ba073a686b4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#297251}
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 6
Patch Set 2 : Remove :: #
Total comments: 2
Messages
Total messages: 20 (7 generated)
pkasting@chromium.org changed reviewers: + cpu@chromium.org
lgtm https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:56: there is an inconsistency in this file wrt windows api calls, the :: versus nothing. I figure you might want to correct that while we are here. https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:58: CHECK(false); I have no idea why we are closing the snapshot handle if we are going to go up in flames. Did I coded that? Anyhow remove the close.
https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:58: CHECK(false); On 2014/09/26 01:17:50, cpu wrote: > I have no idea why we are closing the snapshot handle if we are going to go up > in flames. Did I coded that? It wasn't me :) > Anyhow remove the close. Is it really wrong? If it's correct and just unnecessary I'd kinda rather leave it in...
https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:58: CHECK(false); On 2014/09/26 01:21:33, Peter Kasting wrote: > On 2014/09/26 01:17:50, cpu wrote: > > I have no idea why we are closing the snapshot handle if we are going to go up > > in flames. Did I coded that? > > It wasn't me :) > > > Anyhow remove the close. > > Is it really wrong? If it's correct and just unnecessary I'd kinda rather leave > it in... Its best to not do cleanup if we are intent in generating a dump. We want to preserve more state, not less. Not hung on this, so fee free to skip. Just spelling the rationale.
https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:56: On 2014/09/26 01:17:50, cpu wrote: > there is an inconsistency in this file wrt windows api calls, the :: versus > nothing. I figure you might want to correct that while we are here. Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/1/base/debug/gdi_debug_util_wi... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:58: CHECK(false); On 2014/09/29 19:01:48, cpu wrote: > On 2014/09/26 01:21:33, Peter Kasting wrote: > > On 2014/09/26 01:17:50, cpu wrote: > > > I have no idea why we are closing the snapshot handle if we are going to go > up > > > in flames. Did I coded that? > > > > It wasn't me :) > > > > > Anyhow remove the close. > > > > Is it really wrong? If it's correct and just unnecessary I'd kinda rather > leave > > it in... > > Its best to not do cleanup if we are intent in generating a dump. We want to > preserve more state, not less. > > Not hung on this, so fee free to skip. Just spelling the rationale. OK. I think I'll leave the code as-is rather than make a functional change here.
The CQ bit was checked by pkasting@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/594423002/20001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)
pkasting@chromium.org changed reviewers: + brettw@chromium.org
+brettw for OWNERS
willchan@chromium.org changed reviewers: + willchan@chromium.org
lgtm https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/20001/base/debug/gdi_debug_uti... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/20001/base/debug/gdi_debug_uti... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:117: DeleteObject(small_bitmap); Looks like you also fix a leak here. Maybe you should mention that in the CL description?
pkasting@chromium.org changed reviewers: - brettw@chromium.org
https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/20001/base/debug/gdi_debug_uti... File base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/594423002/diff/20001/base/debug/gdi_debug_uti... base/debug/gdi_debug_util_win.cc:117: DeleteObject(small_bitmap); On 2014/09/29 20:03:19, willchan OOO until 03-22-15 wrote: > Looks like you also fix a leak here. Maybe you should mention that in the CL > description? Done.
The CQ bit was checked by pkasting@chromium.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/594423002/20001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as 52f7ff3d1be74e56e7de39a11f31b51a61fc4bad
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/767ea6b133ce5e1818ac6f41c6210ba073a686b4 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#297251} |
