> On Nov. 2, 2016, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/encoder.hpp, line 290 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/4/?file=1547640#file1547640line290> > > > > I think using an `off_t` for a size is semantically incorrect; I'd stay > > with `size_t`. This requires adjusting the usage above.
James Peach and I had a discussion about this and thought that `off_t` is more correct for representing file sizes. Why would you prefer to stick with `size_t`? > On Nov. 2, 2016, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp, line 3735 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/4/?file=1547641#file1547641line3735> > > > > While `vector<string>::size_type` is the correct type here, we > > typically just use `size_t`. Wouldn't `container::size_type` be more portable? `size_t` could vary on the platform where `size_type` is container dependent. > On Nov. 2, 2016, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/io_tests.cpp, line 284 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/4/?file=1547645#file1547645line284> > > > > `string::size_type` is the correct type, but we typically just use > > `size_t`. > > > > Not directly an issue, but to me casting the signed LHS to an unsigned > > type feels more dangerous than casting the unsigned RHS to signed since I > > feel we seem much less likely deal with very large unsigned values (RHS) > > than with negative numbers close to zero like `-1` on the RHS. I would > > personally would cast the RHS instead. What do you think? Same comment as above for your first comment. I agree with what you're saying about the casting here. I'll swap it around. - Aaron ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/#review154530 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 27, 2016, 4:51 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 27, 2016, 4:51 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, James Peach, Michael Park, and Neil Conway. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6239 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6239 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The hardening flags produced many new sign comparison errors in libprocess > that need to be fixed for Mesos to compile/run. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/decoder.hpp c79296b > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/encoder.hpp 005d1cc > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp ab2b5a9 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/decoder_tests.cpp 4535614 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/encoder_tests.cpp 9e57375 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/http_tests.cpp 533104c > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/io_tests.cpp b85c79f > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp 0dc1c62 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang. > Ran `make && make check && make bench`. > > > Thanks, > > Aaron Wood > >
