Oilpan: fix build after r187207.

Oilpan: fix build after r187207.

TBR=oilpan-reviews,haraken
BUG=392365
NOTRY=true

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187230

[sof, 2014-12-16 06:29:57]

Please take a look.

[kouhei (in TOK), 2014-12-16 06:31:29]

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

[kouhei (in TOK), 2014-12-16 06:31:30]

The CQ bit was checked by kouhei@chromium.org

[kouhei (in TOK), 2014-12-16 06:31:30]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-16 06:32:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/789063004/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-16 06:33:09]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=187230

[haraken, 2014-12-16 06:37:06]

https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/ will fix the build failure without
landing this change. (Sorry for not providing the details in
https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/.) It would be nicer if we can just
use 'const auto&'.

[sof, 2014-12-16 06:39:11]

On 2014/12/16 06:37:06, haraken wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/ will fix the build failure without
> landing this change. (Sorry for not providing the details in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/.) It would be nicer if we can just
> use 'const auto&'.

I thought we were operating with there needing to be a difference between the
two; seem to remember this being discussed when these const autos appeared
first.

Has perf been verified as not making a difference?

[haraken, 2014-12-16 06:44:42]

On 2014/12/16 06:39:11, sof wrote:
> On 2014/12/16 06:37:06, haraken wrote:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/ will fix the build failure
without
> > landing this change. (Sorry for not providing the details in
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/.) It would be nicer if we can
just
> > use 'const auto&'.
> 
> I thought we were operating with there needing to be a difference between the
> two; seem to remember this being discussed when these const autos appeared
> first.
> 
> Has perf been verified as not making a difference?

Oh, thanks for pointing it out. Would you help me find a discussion about it? :)

[sof, 2014-12-16 07:09:15]

On 2014/12/16 06:44:42, haraken wrote:
> On 2014/12/16 06:39:11, sof wrote:
> > On 2014/12/16 06:37:06, haraken wrote:
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/ will fix the build failure
> without
> > > landing this change. (Sorry for not providing the details in
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/808673005/.) It would be nicer if we can
> just
> > > use 'const auto&'.
> > 
> > I thought we were operating with there needing to be a difference between
the
> > two; seem to remember this being discussed when these const autos appeared
> > first.
> > 
> > Has perf been verified as not making a difference?
> 
> Oh, thanks for pointing it out. Would you help me find a discussion about it?
:)

Hmm.

Somewhere around https://codereview.chromium.org/661793002/