Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2454a43cd4d0e176
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#10792}

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:04:07]

PTAL

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:04:36]

Description was changed from

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generates build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
==========

to

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
==========

[kjellander_webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:21:30]

lgtm, but there really should be a .gypi and BUILD.gn file in
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/webrtc...
that is referenced from these files. 
henrikg: can you make that happen?

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:35:03]

Description was changed from

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
==========

to

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org
==========

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:35:03]

pbos@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ henrikg@webrtc.org

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:35:55]

TBR=henrikg@, this solves a breakage

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:40:16]

Description was changed from

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org
==========

to

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2...
==========

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-25 20:40:18]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2454a43cd4d0e176 (presubmit successful).

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-25 20:40:18]

Description was changed from

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org

Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2...
==========

to

==========
Move Chromium logging into rtc_base_approved.

The corresponding set of overrides weren't moved when logging.cc etc.
was moved over. This wasn't noticed because all existing targets before
webrtc fuzzers used to link both rtc_base and rtc_base_approved in
Chromium. Also adding //base:base as a dependency, this used to be
linked in by other targets either way before but generated build errors
when a target solely depends on rtc_base_approved.

BUG=webrtc:4771
R=kjellander@webrtc.org
TBR=henrikg@webrtc.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2454a43cd4d0e176
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#10792}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-11-25 20:40:19]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/11e022904dcae5a5a9d17efc2454a43cd4d0e176
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#10792}

[Henrik Grunell WebRTC, 2015-11-26 11:42:44]

lgtm

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn
File webrtc/base/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn#newcode165
webrtc/base/BUILD.gn:165: "constructormagic.h",
constructormagic.h isn't in the gyp file for this target. Which one is correct?

[pbos-webrtc, 2015-11-26 11:48:07]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn
File webrtc/base/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn#newcode165
webrtc/base/BUILD.gn:165: "constructormagic.h",
On 2015/11/26 11:42:44, Henrik Grunell (webrtc) wrote:
> constructormagic.h isn't in the gyp file for this target. Which one is
correct?

It is, but it's also excluded from rtc_base which should be a no-op since it's
not present there.

We can build this file in Chromium due to your RTC_ prefixes. CL here that
cleans this up: https://codereview.webrtc.org/1477013003/

[Henrik Grunell WebRTC, 2015-11-26 11:50:05]

On 2015/11/25 20:21:30, kjellander (webrtc) wrote:
> lgtm, but there really should be a .gypi and BUILD.gn file in
>
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/webrtc...
> that is referenced from these files. 
> henrikg: can you make that happen?

I was hoping that the webrtc/libjingle merge will happen soon which will allow
us to have webrtc build files in Chromium. Afaik. But, sgtm to have build files
for the overrides. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=562046

[Henrik Grunell WebRTC, 2015-11-26 11:52:07]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn
File webrtc/base/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1473223005/diff/1/webrtc/base/BUILD.gn#newcode165
webrtc/base/BUILD.gn:165: "constructormagic.h",
On 2015/11/26 11:48:07, pbos-webrtc wrote:
> On 2015/11/26 11:42:44, Henrik Grunell (webrtc) wrote:
> > constructormagic.h isn't in the gyp file for this target. Which one is
> correct?
> 
> It is, but it's also excluded from rtc_base which should be a no-op since it's
> not present there.
> 
> We can build this file in Chromium due to your RTC_ prefixes. CL here that
> cleans this up: https://codereview.webrtc.org/1477013003/

Acknowledged.