----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/#review13460 -----------------------------------------------------------
On the face of it I also can see no reason why bool(impl) should return a different result to bool(impl.get != 0) so I'm a little suspicious that this is really fixing anything! I guess it depends on the precise behaviour of bool(boost::shared_ptr<T*>) but that should have precisely the same behaviour as extracting the T* and comparing with the null pointer. - Andrew Stitcher On Nov. 15, 2012, 3:05 a.m., Steve Huston wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 15, 2012, 3:05 a.m.) > > > Review request for qpid, Andrew Stitcher, Chug Rolke, and Cliff Jansen. > > > Description > ------- > > The assert in QPID-4424 was a check for a Thread object not set. This change > resolves that problem, but could it really be that easy? Why doesn't the > Linux code fail the same way? > > > This addresses bug QPID-4424. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4424 > > > Diffs > ----- > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/sys/windows/Thread.cpp > 1409628 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Original reproducing test case in QPID-4424 (run broker quiet for 15 > seconds). I set a breakpoint at the assert and stepped across it without > error. > > > Thanks, > > Steve Huston > >
