Tom Cherry 4e58c84854 liblog: remove obsolete comment ... The log_time struct satisfies all of the requirements for an implicitly created copy constructor to be present, so not defining one here does not have any real effect. We don't want to delete the copy constructor for the rationale given either; modern C++ favors passing small types by value instead of by reference as the compiler has more opportunity for optimization in that case. That's especially true here, where the size of this struct is the size of a pointer on 64 bit systems. Test: the copy constructor exists for log_time Change-Id: Id314ca7729f4b1ca02adb6c7f0ae759b22be2a5c		2019-10-14 13:23:29 -07:00
..
android	Workaround bad markdown parser.	2019-05-02 12:25:22 -07:00
log	liblog: remove obsolete comment	2019-10-14 13:23:29 -07:00
private	liblog: use packed structs instead of raw unaligned reads	2019-10-09 18:20:49 -07:00