Revert of Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348.

Revert of Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348. (patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.webrtc.org/2110043003/ )

Reason for revert:
Not needed since https://codereview.chromium.org/2110873002/.

Original issue's description:
> Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348.
>
> Permits rolling chromium further.
>
> BUG=
> TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
>
> Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/f516585e10b8a20f16c26b6e593745d0bb04a6cc

TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/9ef678502793efcd593119a3996829a97bd3c616
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13344}

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-30 09:32:25]

The CQ bit was checked by pbos@webrtc.org

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-30 09:32:26]

Created Revert of Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-30 09:32:27]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.webrtc.org/...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-30 09:32:36]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-30 09:32:45]

Description was changed from

==========
Revert of Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348. (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2110043003/ )

Reason for revert:
Not needed since https://codereview.chromium.org/2110873002/.

Original issue's description:
> Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348.
> 
> Permits rolling chromium further.
> 
> BUG=
> TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
> 
> Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/f516585e10b8a20f16c26b6e5...

TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=
==========

to

==========
Revert of Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348. (patchset #1 id:1 of
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2110043003/ )

Reason for revert:
Not needed since https://codereview.chromium.org/2110873002/.

Original issue's description:
> Workaround for clang bug http://llvm.org/PR28348.
>
> Permits rolling chromium further.
>
> BUG=
> TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
>
> Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc/+/f516585e10b8a20f16c26b6e5...

TBR=tommi@webrtc.org
# Skipping CQ checks because original CL landed less than 1 days ago.
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/9ef678502793efcd593119a3996829a97bd3c616
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13344}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-06-30 09:32:46]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/9ef678502793efcd593119a3996829a97bd3c616
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13344}

[tommi, 2016-06-30 10:39:19]

lgtm w/future request

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
File webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h:1219: data_ptr += kPadToHeapSized +
(-(static_cast<int>(data_size)) & 4095);
instead of 4095, can we use 0xfff?  I find it a lot easier to understand what's
going on then.
Also, we're using this constant in several places inside of this function. Maybe
it's worth having a mask constant at the top.

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-30 12:16:54]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
File webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h:1219: data_ptr += kPadToHeapSized +
(-(static_cast<int>(data_size)) & 4095);
On 2016/06/30 10:39:18, tommi-webrtc wrote:
> instead of 4095, can we use 0xfff?  I find it a lot easier to understand
what's
> going on then.
> Also, we're using this constant in several places inside of this function.
Maybe
> it's worth having a mask constant at the top.

I agree, but I find this hard to read overall, I'm not even sure what to call
the constant. :\

[tommi, 2016-06-30 13:21:23]

On 2016/06/30 12:16:54, pbos-webrtc wrote:
>
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
> File webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
> webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h:1219: data_ptr += kPadToHeapSized +
> (-(static_cast<int>(data_size)) & 4095);
> On 2016/06/30 10:39:18, tommi-webrtc wrote:
> > instead of 4095, can we use 0xfff?  I find it a lot easier to understand
> what's
> > going on then.
> > Also, we're using this constant in several places inside of this function.
> Maybe
> > it's worth having a mask constant at the top.
> 
> I agree, but I find this hard to read overall, I'm not even sure what to call
> the constant. :\

what about kFff

[pbos-webrtc, 2016-06-30 13:53:14]

On 2016/06/30 13:21:23, tommi-webrtc wrote:
> On 2016/06/30 12:16:54, pbos-webrtc wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
> > File webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2106383002/diff/1/webrtc/media/base/videoframe_...
> > webrtc/media/base/videoframe_unittest.h:1219: data_ptr += kPadToHeapSized +
> > (-(static_cast<int>(data_size)) & 4095);
> > On 2016/06/30 10:39:18, tommi-webrtc wrote:
> > > instead of 4095, can we use 0xfff?  I find it a lot easier to understand
> > what's
> > > going on then.
> > > Also, we're using this constant in several places inside of this function.
> > Maybe
> > > it's worth having a mask constant at the top.
> > 
> > I agree, but I find this hard to read overall, I'm not even sure what to
call
> > the constant. :\
> 
> what about kFff

k4095InHex