DO NOT SUBMIT: test member initializers

DO NOT SUBMIT: test member initializers

BUG=

[Alex Vakulenko (Google), 2014-09-25 18:06:51]

avakulenko@google.com changed reviewers:
+ avakulenko@google.com

[Alex Vakulenko (Google), 2014-09-25 18:06:52]

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
File cc/resources/resource_provider.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
cc/resources/resource_provider.h:427: scoped_refptr<Fence> read_lock_fence =
nullptr;
It's a class with a default constructor, does it have to be value initialized
like that?

[jamesr, 2014-09-25 18:10:55]

jamesr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jamesr@chromium.org

[jamesr, 2014-09-25 18:10:56]

Having a mix of values between the header and constructor is sad here - now you
have to read two pieces of code to get the default values for all members of
this class :(.

Do you know the status of member initializers for bit fields?

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
File cc/resources/resource_provider.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
cc/resources/resource_provider.h:427: scoped_refptr<Fence> read_lock_fence =
nullptr;
On 2014/09/25 18:06:51, Alex Vakulenko (Google) wrote:
> It's a class with a default constructor, does it have to be value initialized
> like that?

Yeah, this seems unnecessary.

[jbroman, 2014-09-25 18:18:34]

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
File cc/resources/resource_provider.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
cc/resources/resource_provider.h:427: scoped_refptr<Fence> read_lock_fence =
nullptr;
On 2014/09/25 18:10:55, jamesr wrote:
> On 2014/09/25 18:06:51, Alex Vakulenko (Google) wrote:
> > It's a class with a default constructor, does it have to be value
initialized
> > like that?
> 
> Yeah, this seems unnecessary.

Agreed. Only did this because the constructors previously said
"read_lock_fence(NULL)," so I figured it might be a style preference in cc I was
unaware of.

[jbroman, 2014-11-11 22:04:31]

On 2014/09/25 18:18:34, jbroman wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
> File cc/resources/resource_provider.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/606733003/diff/1/cc/resources/resource_provid...
> cc/resources/resource_provider.h:427: scoped_refptr<Fence> read_lock_fence =
> nullptr;
> On 2014/09/25 18:10:55, jamesr wrote:
> > On 2014/09/25 18:06:51, Alex Vakulenko (Google) wrote:
> > > It's a class with a default constructor, does it have to be value
> initialized
> > > like that?
> > 
> > Yeah, this seems unnecessary.
> 
> Agreed. Only did this because the constructors previously said
> "read_lock_fence(NULL)," so I figured it might be a style preference in cc I
was
> unaware of.

This CL was just an example. Closing to de-clutter Rietveld.