Remove memcpy from SSLClientSocket::SerializeNextProtos.

Remove memcpy from SSLClientSocket::SerializeNextProtos.

Committed: https://crrev.com/debbbb3734c02a339a79f285a6f2c468e275bbb7
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#308141}

[Bence, 2014-12-11 16:23:54]

bnc@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rch@chromium.org

[Bence, 2014-12-11 16:23:54]

Ryan: PTAL.  Is this what you had in mind when writing your comment at
https://codereview.chromium.org/794563003/diff/40001/net/socket/ssl_client_so...
?

[Ryan Hamilton, 2014-12-11 19:58:41]

This looks much cleaner. However, can you confirm that it *definitely* produces
exactly the same results?

https://codereview.chromium.org/798603002/diff/1/net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc
File net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/798603002/diff/1/net/socket/ssl_client_socket...
net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc:251: for (const auto ch : proto) {
s/auto/char/ (I assume it's a char?)

[Bence, 2014-12-12 13:22:25]

> This looks much cleaner. However, can you confirm that it
> *definitely* produces exactly the same results?

I am absolutely certain, but I do not want these to be famous last words, so
let's put this CL on hold until I add a unit test here:
https://crrev.com/801803002.

https://codereview.chromium.org/798603002/diff/1/net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc
File net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/798603002/diff/1/net/socket/ssl_client_socket...
net/socket/ssl_client_socket.cc:251: for (const auto ch : proto) {
On 2014/12/11 19:58:41, Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> s/auto/char/ (I assume it's a char?)

You are right, the standard requires it in Section 21.3:
typedef basic_string<char> string;

[Bence, 2014-12-12 16:40:28]

Ryan: PTAL.
https://crrev.com/801803002 landed, triggering bots again.  (Test passed locally
on my machine.)

[Ryan Hamilton, 2014-12-12 17:51:29]

On 2014/12/12 16:40:28, Bence wrote:
> Ryan: PTAL.
> https://crrev.com/801803002 landed, triggering bots again.  (Test passed
locally
> on my machine.)

LGTM. Thanks for adding the test and easing my mind :>

[Bence, 2014-12-12 18:11:42]

The CQ bit was checked by bnc@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 18:12:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/798603002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 19:15:58]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 19:16:42]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/debbbb3734c02a339a79f285a6f2c468e275bbb7
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#308141}