Delete always-zero ByteBufferWriter::start_.

Delete always-zero ByteBufferWriter::start_.

Likely a left-over since cl https://codereview.webrtc.org/1821083002

BUG=None

Committed: https://crrev.com/d3c40089fa5b03de918e0660f79824dd65e4d5e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14732}

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-10-21 09:55:29]

nisse@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ jbauch@webrtc.org, kwiberg@webrtc.org, tommi@webrtc.org

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-10-21 09:55:30]

Other refactorings I'm considering:

Deleting the conditional byte-order logic, since this is currently used
exclusively for network byte-order.

Change to use uint8_t* rather than char* (something similar done to the Buffer
class in cl https://webrtc-codereview.appspot.com/42989004).

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2016-10-21 10:52:30]

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

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2016-10-21 10:52:31]

lgtm

[joachim, 2016-10-21 11:54:17]

lgtm

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-10-21 11:56:52]

lgtm

Because it's not enough to have a change of this magnitude reviewed by only two
engineers. :-)

[nisse-chromium (ooo August 14), 2016-10-21 12:31:42]

The CQ bit was checked by nisse@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 12:31:54]

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

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-10-21 13:02:57]

On 2016/10/21 11:56:52, kwiberg-webrtc wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Because it's not enough to have a change of this magnitude reviewed by only
two
> engineers. :-)

I was also hoping for some advice on further changes...

[joachim, 2016-10-21 13:11:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc
File webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc#n...
webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc:124: memmove(bytes_, bytes_, len);
Sorry, didn't notice this in the first place, but the memmove is a no-op now and
can be removed.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 14:32:20]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-21 14:32:21]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_rel on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  android_clang_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  android_compile_mips_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)
  android_compile_x64_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)
  android_compile_x86_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)
  android_compile_x86_rel on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build
URL)
  android_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  android_gyp_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  android_rel on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_arm on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_asan on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_compile_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_gyp_dbg on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_libfuzzer_rel on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_msan on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_rel on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_tsan2 on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_ubsan on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_ubsan_vptr on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  presubmit on master.tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-10-21 15:08:33]

On 2016/10/21 09:55:30, nisse-webrtc wrote:
> Other refactorings I'm considering:
> 
> Deleting the conditional byte-order logic, since this is currently used
> exclusively for network byte-order.

Probably makes sense.

> Change to use uint8_t* rather than char* (something similar done to the Buffer
> class in cl https://webrtc-codereview.appspot.com/42989004).

Would it make sense for this class to use a Buffer internally?

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-10-21 15:08:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc
File webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc#n...
webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc:124: memmove(bytes_, bytes_, len);
On 2016/10/21 13:11:19, joachim wrote:
> Sorry, didn't notice this in the first place, but the memmove is a no-op now
and
> can be removed.

So it DOES take three people to review this... :-)

[tommi (sloooow) - chröme, 2016-10-21 15:15:39]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc
File webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc#n...
webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc:124: memmove(bytes_, bytes_, len);
On 2016/10/21 15:08:42, kwiberg-webrtc wrote:
> On 2016/10/21 13:11:19, joachim wrote:
> > Sorry, didn't notice this in the first place, but the memmove is a no-op now
> and
> > can be removed.
> 
> So it DOES take three people to review this... :-)

Indeed!

[nisse-webrtc, 2016-10-24 06:48:27]

On 2016/10/21 15:08:33, kwiberg-webrtc wrote:

> Would it make sense for this class to use a Buffer internally?

Sounds reasonable, but I haven't looked at the details...

[nisse-chromium (ooo August 14), 2016-10-24 06:51:07]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc
File webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/diff/1/webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc#n...
webrtc/base/bytebuffer.cc:124: memmove(bytes_, bytes_, len);
On 2016/10/21 13:11:19, joachim wrote:
> Sorry, didn't notice this in the first place, but the memmove is a no-op now
and
> can be removed.

Done.

[nisse-chromium (ooo August 14), 2016-10-24 06:59:02]

The CQ bit was checked by nisse@chromium.org

[nisse-chromium (ooo August 14), 2016-10-24 06:59:02]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from jbauch@webrtc.org,
kwiberg@webrtc.org, tommi@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2440083002/#ps20001
(title: "Delete useless memmove.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 06:59:10]

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, 2016-10-24 08:06:17]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 08:06:27]

Description was changed from

==========
Delete always-zero ByteBufferWriter::start_.

Likely a left-over since cl https://codereview.webrtc.org/1821083002

BUG=None
==========

to

==========
Delete always-zero ByteBufferWriter::start_.

Likely a left-over since cl https://codereview.webrtc.org/1821083002

BUG=None

Committed: https://crrev.com/d3c40089fa5b03de918e0660f79824dd65e4d5e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14732}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-24 08:06:28]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/d3c40089fa5b03de918e0660f79824dd65e4d5e8
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#14732}