Unlike the Scoped* types, bssl::UniquePtr is available to C++ users, and
offered for a large variety of types.  The 'extern "C++"' trick is used
to make the C++ bits digestible to C callers that wrap header files in
'extern "C"'.

Change-Id: Ifbca4c2997d6628e33028c7d7620c72aff0f862e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/10521
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>

This reverts commit 09feb0f3d9.

(In order to make WebRTC happy this also needs to be reverted.)

This reverts commits:
8d79ed6740
19fdcb5234
8d79ed6740

Because WebRTC (at least) includes our headers in an extern "C" block,
which precludes having any C++ in them.

Change-Id: Ia849f43795a40034cbd45b22ea680b51aab28b2d

This change scatters the contents of the two scoped_types.h files into
the headers for each of the areas of the code. The types are now in the
|bssl| namespace.

Change-Id: I802b8de68fba4786b6a0ac1bacd11d81d5842423
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8731
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>

We currently have the situation where the |tool| and |bssl_shim| code
includes scoped_types.h from crypto/test and ssl/test. That's weird and
shouldn't happen. Also, our C++ consumers might quite like to have
access to the scoped types.

Thus this change moves some of the template code to base.h and puts it
all in a |bssl| namespace to prepare for scattering these types into
their respective headers. In order that all the existing test code be
able to access these types, it's all moved into the same namespace.

Change-Id: I3207e29474dc5fcc344ace43119df26dae04eabb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8730
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>

This ensures that the test is not flaky after lots of iterations.

Along the way, change newhope_test.cc to C++.

Change-Id: I4ef139444b8c8a98db53d075105eb6806f6c5fc7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8110
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>