Switch to clang for nocompile tests and rebaseline existing results.

Switch to clang for nocompile tests and rebaseline existing results.

BUG=105388
Committed: https://crrev.com/b760d7244b7a154d7fb4239707749f79ac0c5959
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#302483}

[dcheng, 2014-11-01 01:08:05]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ danakj@chromium.org

[dcheng, 2014-11-01 01:08:06]

This doesn't re-enable them yet, but at least, it's nice to be able to run them
without a bunch of false positives. I've also updated it to use clang, because
Mac/Linux both default to using clang now.

[danakj, 2014-11-03 16:05:13]

Wow I had no idea these even exist!

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/base/memory/scoped_ptr_unitt...
File base/memory/scoped_ptr_unittest.nc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/base/memory/scoped_ptr_unitt...
base/memory/scoped_ptr_unittest.nc:25: return object.PassAs<Child>();
Should we have a case of object.Pass(); where the return value is Child and
object is Parent though?

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi
File build/nocompile.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi#newcode92
build/nocompile.gypi:92: 'sources/': [['exclude', '\\.nc$']]
btw isn't this redundant with L61?

[dcheng, 2014-11-03 18:58:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/base/memory/scoped_ptr_unitt...
File base/memory/scoped_ptr_unittest.nc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/base/memory/scoped_ptr_unitt...
base/memory/scoped_ptr_unittest.nc:25: return object.PassAs<Child>();
On 2014/11/03 16:05:13, danakj wrote:
> Should we have a case of object.Pass(); where the return value is Child and
> object is Parent though?

Good point. Changed this to DowncastUsingPass.

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi
File build/nocompile.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi#newcode92
build/nocompile.gypi:92: 'sources/': [['exclude', '\\.nc$']]
On 2014/11/03 16:05:13, danakj wrote:
> btw isn't this redundant with L61?

Think of line 61 as a quick way to ifdef out this block. At some on the future,
it'd be nice to remove that exclusion and have it just work everywhere it's
supported.

[danakj, 2014-11-03 19:00:14]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi
File build/nocompile.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/678263003/diff/1/build/nocompile.gypi#newcode92
build/nocompile.gypi:92: 'sources/': [['exclude', '\\.nc$']]
On 2014/11/03 18:58:18, dcheng wrote:
> On 2014/11/03 16:05:13, danakj wrote:
> > btw isn't this redundant with L61?
> 
> Think of line 61 as a quick way to ifdef out this block. At some on the
future,
> it'd be nice to remove that exclusion and have it just work everywhere it's
> supported.

Oh I see, that's why the TODO is there.

[dcheng, 2014-11-03 19:29:29]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 19:30:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/678263003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 20:33:41]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 20:33:42]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel on tryserver.chromium.linux
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)

[dcheng, 2014-11-03 20:56:43]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 20:58:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/678263003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 21:29:37]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-03 21:30:13]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/b760d7244b7a154d7fb4239707749f79ac0c5959
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#302483}