[C++11 Allowed Features] Declares a type-safe null pointer converting from NULL to nullptr in src/…

[C++11 Allowed Features] Declares a type-safe null pointer converting from NULL to  nullptr in src/cc [part-2]

BUG =

Committed: https://crrev.com/4015690f15e47949bf0dc40c7adea721dda94ef9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#299106}

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-09 09:10:21]

kulkarni.a@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ danakj@chromium.org, reveman@chromium.org

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-09 09:10:22]

reveman@chromium.org: Please review changes in 

danakj@chromium.org: Please review changes in 

PTAL

[reveman, 2014-10-09 15:08:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/layer_client.h
File cc/layers/layer_client.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/layer_client.h#new...
cc/layers/layer_client.h:24: // If not, returns nullptr. If the returned pointer
is non-nullptr, the caller takes
Please reformat this comment or avoid changing to nullptr in this case.

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
File cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:199: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
This needs re-formatting.

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:313: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
this too

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:374: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
and this

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:455: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
ditto

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:510: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
format

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:566: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
format

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:622: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer> test_layer
= TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
format

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc
File cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/video_layer_impl.c...
cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc:44: : LayerImpl(tree_impl, id), frame_(nullptr),
video_rotation_(video_rotation) {
needs re-format

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-10 07:59:43]

On 2014/10/09 15:08:01, reveman wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/layer_client.h
> File cc/layers/layer_client.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/layer_client.h#new...
> cc/layers/layer_client.h:24: // If not, returns nullptr. If the returned
pointer
> is non-nullptr, the caller takes
> Please reformat this comment or avoid changing to nullptr in this case.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> File cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:199: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> This needs re-formatting.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:313: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> this too
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:374: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> and this
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:455: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> ditto
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:510: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> format
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:566: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> format
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/texture_layer_unit...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:622: scoped_refptr<TextureLayer>
test_layer
> = TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> format
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc
> File cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/1/cc/layers/video_layer_impl.c...
> cc/layers/video_layer_impl.cc:44: : LayerImpl(tree_impl, id), frame_(nullptr),
> video_rotation_(video_rotation) {
> needs re-format

PTAL.

[reveman, 2014-10-10 11:44:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/20001/cc/layers/texture_layer_...
File cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/20001/cc/layers/texture_layer_...
cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:200:
TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
this formatting looks weird. is this what "cl format" produced?

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-10 12:26:54]

On 2014/10/10 11:44:19, reveman wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/20001/cc/layers/texture_layer_...
> File cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/20001/cc/layers/texture_layer_...
> cc/layers/texture_layer_unittest.cc:200:
> TextureLayer::CreateForMailbox(nullptr);
> this formatting looks weird. is this what "cl format" produced?

sorry , i have done manually.
Now i have applied "cl format" .
PTAL.

[reveman, 2014-10-10 12:33:35]

lgtm

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-10 12:34:37]

On 2014/10/10 12:33:35, reveman wrote:
> lgtm

Thanks for Review and LGTM.

[ARUNKK, 2014-10-10 12:34:44]

The CQ bit was checked by kulkarni.a@samsung.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-10 12:35:57]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/643583003/280001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-10 13:50:18]

Committed patchset #4 (id:280001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-10 13:51:08]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/4015690f15e47949bf0dc40c7adea721dda94ef9
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#299106}

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2014-10-10 16:55:02]

Your change description makes no sense. "[C++11 Allowed Features] Declares a
type-safe null pointer converting from NULL to  nullptr". This change does not
declare any pointers. This description seems to mash together two sentences:
"C++11 declares a type safe null pointer" and "This change converts from NULL to
nullptr". Please rewrite it to be grammatical English.

Also, if we’re doing a bulk conversion from NULL to nullptr, we should have a
master BUG tying this all together.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2014-10-10 16:55:11]

Your change description makes no sense. "[C++11 Allowed Features] Declares a
type-safe null pointer converting from NULL to  nullptr". This change does not
declare any pointers. This description seems to mash together two sentences:
"C++11 declares a type safe null pointer" and "This change converts from NULL to
nullptr". Please rewrite it to be grammatical English.

Also, if we’re doing a bulk conversion from NULL to nullptr, we should have a
master BUG tying this all together.

[viettrungluu, 2014-10-10 17:13:59]

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

[viettrungluu, 2014-10-10 17:14:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/280001/cc/layers/layer.h
File cc/layers/layer.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/280001/cc/layers/layer.h#newco...
cc/layers/layer.h:103: // first), then the callback is called with a
nullptr/empty result.
Dubious comment change. "null" would be better.

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/280001/cc/layers/layer_client.h
File cc/layers/layer_client.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/643583003/diff/280001/cc/layers/layer_client....
cc/layers/layer_client.h:25: // If the returned pointer is non-nullptr, the
caller takes
"non-null"