[protobuf] Issue 289 in protobuf: 64 bit release build unit tests fail in MSVC 2010
Status: New Owner: liuj...@google.com Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 289 by m...@bakedbeans.com: 64 bit release build unit tests fail in MSVC 2010 http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=289 What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Add x64 target to MSVC solution/projects 2. Compile for x64 in release build 3. Run tests.exe What is the expected output? What do you see instead? I expect to see the unit tests all pass. See attachment for observed output. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? 2.4.1 Please provide any additional information below. Attachments: out.txt 114 KB -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
[protobuf] Re: Issue 267 in protobuf: vs2010 tuple name collisions
Comment #1 on issue 267 by m...@bakedbeans.com: vs2010 tuple name collisions http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=267 I replaced the GTest libraries with 1.5.0 and this solved the problem. I think the version supplied with protobuf is too low. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
[protobuf] Eclipse Feature for authoring editing .proto files
Does anyone know of a (good) implementation for protocol buffer file editor in the Eclipse IDE? I've found a couple of scattered, incomplete, and abandoned protobuf- related eclipse plugins... but I'm just looking for a text editor implementation with syntax highlighting and content assist. I ask because I'm close to just creating one unless I'll be reinventing the wheel. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
[protobuf] Re: Issue 286 in protobuf: Inconsistency with repeated fields using C++ protobufs
Updates: Owner: --- Comment #2 on issue 286 by jas...@google.com: Inconsistency with repeated fields using C++ protobufs http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=286 Oh, it turns out this is a known issue, and we have a bug tracking this internally. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of available bandwidth to work out the issues in the python cpp implementation, so progress has been slow. We'll post updates as they become available. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
Re: [protobuf] Generated hashcode() returns different values across JVM instances?
Hi Jay, I encountered that before. Unfortunately this is a legitimate thing to do, as documented in Object.hashCode() I have a write-up of the problem and how we wound up solving it (not elegant.. suggestions welcome) here: http://squarecog.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/hadoop-requires-stable-hashcode-implementations/ D On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Jay Booth jaybo...@gmail.com wrote: I'm testing an on-disk hashtable with Protobufs and noticed that with the java generated hashcode function, it seems to return a different hashcode across JVM invocations for the same logically equivalent object (tested with a single string protobuf, same string for both instances). Is this known behavior? Bit busy right now backporting this to work with String keys instead but I could provide a bit of command line code that demonstrates the issue when I get a chance. Glancing at the generated hashcode() function, it looks like the difference comes from etiher getDescriptorForType().hashCode() or getUnknownFields().hashCode(), both of which are incorporated. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
