More Windows compiler complaint cleanup

More Windows compiler complaint cleanup

[robertphillips, 2012-04-16 14:41:57]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/bench/MathBench.cpp
File bench/MathBench.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/bench/MathBench.cpp#newcode52
bench/MathBench.cpp:52: virtual void performITest(uint32_t* SK_RESTRICT dst,
This should be safe given how performITest is called

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/experimental/Debugger/DebuggerCo...
File experimental/Debugger/DebuggerContentView.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/experimental/Debugger/DebuggerCo...
experimental/Debugger/DebuggerContentView.cpp:8: DebuggerView(const char* data,
size_t size) {
Fixed missing four spaces locally

[TomH, 2012-04-16 15:42:59]

LGTM. I'd avoided doing a few of these because I thought the coding convention
was not to append f, but I don't see that anywhere in the doc - yay! I
personally prefer the explicit f, and am glad the compiler warnings give us the
excuse to add it.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp
File tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp#newco...
tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp:64: uint32_t count = SkMin32(SkNextPow2(temp),
MAX_POINTS_PER_CURVE);
If we're doing cleanup here - SkScalarCeil is deprecated (qv
include/core/SkScalar.h); could we instead use SkScalarCeilToInt() to make the
correct typing of the above more obvious?

[robertphillips, 2012-04-16 15:50:48]

committed as r3689

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp
File tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6007056/diff/1/tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp#newco...
tests/PathCoverageTest.cpp:64: uint32_t count = SkMin32(SkNextPow2(temp),
MAX_POINTS_PER_CURVE);
On 2012/04/16 15:42:59, TomH wrote:
> If we're doing cleanup here - SkScalarCeil is deprecated (qv
> include/core/SkScalar.h); could we instead use SkScalarCeilToInt() to make the
> correct typing of the above more obvious?

Done.