> On April 30, 2018, 11:38 a.m., Akash Gupta wrote:
> > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp
> > Lines 186 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66773/diff/2/?file=2013393#file2013393line197>
> >
> >     the comment should be `x / (10 * 1000 * 1000)` :)
> 
> Andrew Schwartzmeyer wrote:
>     Oops.

I dropped a 1000. I meant `(x * 100) / (1000^3)`, as in `x 100-nanosecond 
intervals to nanoseconds is x * 100` and then `x nanoseconds / 1000^3` to 
seconds.


- Andrew


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66773/#review202132
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 26, 2018, 9:21 p.m., Andrew Schwartzmeyer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66773/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 26, 2018, 9:21 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Akash Gupta, John Kordich, and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8275
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8275
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The functions `mode()`, `dev()`, and `inode()` are unused and do not
> make sense on Windows, so they were explicitly deleted. The function
> `mtime()` is used and has a logical mapping, `GetFileTime()`. However,
> Windows reports time differently from POSIX, so a conversion must also
> be performed such that the API `os::stat::mtime()` remains consistent
> with its POSIX version.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/permissions.hpp 
> 453e60c7268db516c2c94501e11a92fe8f490498 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp 
> c04953ee42f45dd80b6362fbeeddf4a0a20e7412 
>   3rdparty/stout/tests/os_tests.cpp 4221ecdcefb5602ece20cc90b13c3f17057fcb4d 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66773/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Schwartzmeyer
> 
>

Reply via email to