This is an exact copy of rolledback CL 13947013 with a fix to a compliation

This is an exact copy of rolledback CL 13947013 with a fix to a compliation
problem on CrOS.

The CL implements image retargetting.
See https://codereview.chromium.org/13947013/ for details.

BUG=155269
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=194879

[motek., 2013-04-17 12:27:54]

thakis, senorblanco: could I ask you to tap this one once more? 
This is an almost-exact copy of the earlier CL which failed compilation on CrOS
and got rolled back. The only difference is convolver_unittest.cc:443, which
clang didn't like.

M.

[Stephen White, 2013-04-17 13:55:28]

LGTM

I see that linux_clang and android_clang_dbg both passed on the previous CL, so
I'm guessing this is something ChromeOS-specific?  We should have ChromeOS/clang
trybots, I'm guessing.

IWBN to see the diffs versus the old patch.  Is it against SOP in Chrome to
upload to the old codereview when re-landing a patch?

[motek., 2013-04-17 14:17:07]

We have ChromeOS/clang trybots, but they are not default. I remember trying
to check them on through CR UX, but it wouldn't let me for some reason. So
I gave up. Bad for me...

As for IWBN part: I just didn't know how to do it. I never got rolled back
before. I was told by the sheriff to create a new CL so I did.


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, <senorblanco@chromium.org> wrote:

> LGTM
>
> I see that linux_clang and android_clang_dbg both passed on the previous
> CL, so
> I'm guessing this is something ChromeOS-specific?  We should have
> ChromeOS/clang
> trybots, I'm guessing.
>
> IWBN to see the diffs versus the old patch.  Is it against SOP in Chrome to
> upload to the old codereview when re-landing a patch?
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/13912014/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[Nico, 2013-04-17 15:16:22]

lgtm

Looks like there's no linux_chromeos_clang try run this time either; consider
adding one :-)

When relanding reverts, a good pattern is to upload the original patch as patch
set 1 and then make patch set 2 have the fix. Then it's easy to see what's
changed.

[Stephen White, 2013-04-17 15:18:20]

On 2013/04/17 15:16:22, Nico wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Looks like there's no linux_chromeos_clang try run this time either; consider
> adding one :-)
> 
> When relanding reverts, a good pattern is to upload the original patch as
patch
> set 1 and then make patch set 2 have the fix. Then it's easy to see what's
> changed.

+1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-18 09:11:05]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/motek@chromium.org/13912014/15001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-18 11:06:47]

Change committed as 194879