Adding base_untrusted.

Adding base_untrusted.

Adding a nacl version of base.

BUG=None
TEST=None
R=bbudge@chromium.org


Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=141144

[bradn, 2012-06-01 23:23:51]

Ok, this is now working on windows and linux, PTAL.

[bradn, 2012-06-01 23:36:54]

Adding jam.
How's this look to you in terms of syntax for the time being?
This includes changes to the global excludes, future modules will look more like
the changes to base.gyp (hopefully less of the kind of thing in base.gypi).

[jam, 2012-06-04 15:19:40]

On 2012/06/01 23:36:54, bradn wrote:
> Adding jam.
> How's this look to you in terms of syntax for the time being?
> This includes changes to the global excludes, future modules will look more
like
> the changes to base.gyp (hopefully less of the kind of thing in base.gypi).

I trust that this is as unintrusive as you can make it, so it sounds fine to me
:)

[bradn, 2012-06-04 18:59:20]

Adding brettw for OWNERS review.

[brettw, 2012-06-04 19:20:51]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/34002/base/base.gyp
File base/base.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/34002/base/base.gyp#newcode11
base/base.gyp:11: '../native_client/build/untrusted.gypi',
Various other components like some random ChromeOS daemon pull and use base.
While I don't know how all of these work, I'd imagine that adding this line
would cause them to break since they'd need a NaCl checkout.

Is it possible to have something that we can define to enable this dependency so
people that don't define this don't need to have nacl checked out?

[bradn, 2012-06-04 20:01:36]

AH!, excellent general point.
I believe they should in general be building nacl in, but there are lots of
folks who disable nacl generally.
Let me recraft it slightly.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM, <brettw@chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/10389196/diff/34002/base/**base.gyp<http://c...
> File base/base.gyp (right):
>
> http://codereview.chromium.**org/10389196/diff/34002/base/**
>
base.gyp#newcode11<http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/34002/base/base.gyp#newcode11>
> base/base.gyp:11: '../native_client/build/**untrusted.gypi',
> Various other components like some random ChromeOS daemon pull and use
> base. While I don't know how all of these work, I'd imagine that adding
> this line would cause them to break since they'd need a NaCl checkout.
>
> Is it possible to have something that we can define to enable this
> dependency so people that don't define this don't need to have nacl
> checked out?
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.**org/10389196/<http://codereview.chromium.org/103...
>

[bradn, 2012-06-07 20:04:29]

Changed to take advantage of restructure of base.gyp + base.gypi
PTAL

[brettw, 2012-06-07 21:22:26]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/62001/base/base_untrusted.gyp
File base/base_untrusted.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/62001/base/base_untrusted.gyp#ne...
base/base_untrusted.gyp:27: 'file_util.cc',
Can this be in with the rest of the conditions in base.gypi? I'd prefer that
developers never have to open this file to edit the base file list.

[bradn, 2012-06-07 21:43:09]

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/62001/base/base_untrusted.gyp
File base/base_untrusted.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/10389196/diff/62001/base/base_untrusted.gyp#ne...
base/base_untrusted.gyp:27: 'file_util.cc',
On 2012/06/07 21:22:26, brettw wrote:
> Can this be in with the rest of the conditions in base.gypi? I'd prefer that
> developers never have to open this file to edit the base file list.

Done.

[brettw, 2012-06-07 21:44:30]

lgtm

[bbudge-google, 2012-06-07 22:00:03]

LGTM. Thanks so much for all your hard work making this happen.

[brettw, 2012-06-07 22:00:40]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM,  <bbudge@google.com> wrote:
> LGTM. Thanks so much for all your hard work making this happen.

+1!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-07 23:36:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/bradnelson@google.com/10389196/62003

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-06-08 01:02:08]

Change committed as 141144

[Xianzhu, 2012-08-14 16:49:27]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10389196/diff/62003/base/base.gypi
File base/base.gypi (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10389196/diff/62003/base/base.gypi#new...
base/base.gypi:542: ['OS != "android" or >(nacl_untrusted_build)==1', {
The above line looks weird. Could you explain what the intention was?

[bbudge, 2012-08-14 16:53:42]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10389196/diff/62003/base/base.gypi
File base/base.gypi (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10389196/diff/62003/base/base.gypi#new...
base/base.gypi:542: ['OS != "android" or >(nacl_untrusted_build)==1', {
On 2012/08/14 16:49:27, Xianzhu wrote:
> The above line looks weird. Could you explain what the intention was?

'nacl_untrusted_build' indicates that we are building for the Native Client
sandbox, which is a restricted POSIX environment. We need to exclude any
platform specific files, as they won't build. We need this extra bit because
NaCl untrusted builds can be done on many different platforms. While Android
isn't one of them, this pattern works and is consistent with the others. And in
the future, who knows?