add missing headers in cc/*

add missing headers in cc/*

cc/resources/worker_pool.cc uses ConditionVariable but doesn't
include base/synchronization/condition_variable.h.

And various files in cc/scheduler/ were missing base/logging.h and base/bind.h.

BUG=259043
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=211004

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2013-07-10 13:30:24]

@ccameron: does this trivial patch look OK to you?

[danakj, 2013-07-10 16:02:56]

LGTM but it would be really nice to have our "include what you use" checks
verify these headers. cc/ currently passes IWYU so this points out missing
checks there.

[tfarina, 2013-07-10 16:34:14]

On 2013/07/10 16:02:56, danakj wrote:
> LGTM but it would be really nice to have our "include what you use" checks
> verify these headers. cc/ currently passes IWYU so this points out missing
> checks there.

Dana, have you been running https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/ on
cc/? If so, how?

[danakj, 2013-07-10 16:39:45]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, <tfarina@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2013/07/10 16:02:56, danakj wrote:
>
>> LGTM but it would be really nice to have our "include what you use" checks
>> verify these headers. cc/ currently passes IWYU so this points out missing
>> checks there.
>>
>
> Dana, have you been running https://code.google.com/p/**
> include-what-you-use/ <https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/> on
> cc/? If so, how?
>

No, cpplint has an IWYU check included in it (called build/include). Most
of chrome has the check disabled, but in cc/ we have not disabled any
checks.

[jamesr, 2013-07-10 18:01:05]

On 2013/07/10 16:39:45, danakj wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, <mailto:tfarina@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013/07/10 16:02:56, danakj wrote:
> >
> >> LGTM but it would be really nice to have our "include what you use" checks
> >> verify these headers. cc/ currently passes IWYU so this points out missing
> >> checks there.
> >>
> >
> > Dana, have you been running https://code.google.com/p/**
> > include-what-you-use/ <https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/> on
> > cc/? If so, how?
> >
> 
> No, cpplint has an IWYU check included in it (called build/include). Most
> of chrome has the check disabled, but in cc/ we have not disabled any
> checks.

build/include just checks that includes use the full path.
build/include_what_you_use checks IWYU but only for standard library things.

[danakj, 2013-07-10 18:05:24]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM, <jamesr@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2013/07/10 16:39:45, danakj wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, <mailto:tfarina@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>
>  > On 2013/07/10 16:02:56, danakj wrote:
>> >
>> >> LGTM but it would be really nice to have our "include what you use"
>> checks
>> >> verify these headers. cc/ currently passes IWYU so this points out
>> missing
>> >> checks there.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Dana, have you been running https://code.google.com/p/**
>> > include-what-you-use/ <https://code.google.com/p/**
>> include-what-you-use/ <https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/>>
>> on
>> > cc/? If so, how?
>> >
>>
>
>  No, cpplint has an IWYU check included in it (called build/include). Most
>> of chrome has the check disabled, but in cc/ we have not disabled any
>> checks.
>>
>
> build/include just checks that includes use the full path.
> build/include_what_you_use checks IWYU but only for standard library
> things.
>

Well, it also checks base/containers/hash_tables.h since we add it in
depot_tools. Maybe it's not scalable to do that for all base headers.. but
this would be nice to check correctly.


>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/18804005/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2013-07-10 18:05:57]

I'm not sure what the automated checks look for, but these headers are only
included indirectly (which is why they still compile).  I assume it's
better/safer to have these explicitly included (and it makes some of my
unrelated work a lot easier).

[danakj, 2013-07-10 18:09:56]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, <mostynb@opera.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what the automated checks look for, but these headers are only
> included indirectly (which is why they still compile).  I assume it's
> better/safer to have these explicitly included (and it makes some of my
> unrelated work a lot easier).
>

Yes, it is. We want to do this everywhere. I'm just wishing for something
more rigorous than one-off fixes for a few headers when someone notices
them.


>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/18804005/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2013-07-10 19:07:17]

On 2013/07/10 18:09:56, danakj wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, <mailto:mostynb@opera.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure what the automated checks look for, but these headers are only
> > included indirectly (which is why they still compile).  I assume it's
> > better/safer to have these explicitly included (and it makes some of my
> > unrelated work a lot easier).
> >
> 
> Yes, it is. We want to do this everywhere. I'm just wishing for something
> more rigorous than one-off fixes for a few headers when someone notices
> them.

Should I queue this and create a bug to follow up with a scripted check?

[danakj, 2013-07-10 19:12:39]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM, <mostynb@opera.com> wrote:

> On 2013/07/10 18:09:56, danakj wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM, <mailto:mostynb@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>
>  > I'm not sure what the automated checks look for, but these headers are
>> only
>> > included indirectly (which is why they still compile).  I assume it's
>> > better/safer to have these explicitly included (and it makes some of my
>> > unrelated work a lot easier).
>> >
>>
>
>  Yes, it is. We want to do this everywhere. I'm just wishing for something
>> more rigorous than one-off fixes for a few headers when someone notices
>> them.
>>
>
> Should I queue this and create a bug to follow up with a scripted check?
>

Sure, yes please!


>
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/18804005/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2013-07-10 19:39:18]

Created bug 259043:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=259043

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-10 19:39:54]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/18804005/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-10 21:42:26]

Step "update" is always a major failure.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=mac_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-10 21:44:25]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/18804005/3001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-07-11 01:31:58]

Change committed as 211004