> On Nov. 15, 2012, 9:17 p.m., Cliff Jansen wrote:
> > I am going to disagree (with the proposed patch, and agree with Andrew). I
> > managed to reproduce (took closer to 15 minutes on my laptop) and get a
> > similar stack trace.
> >
> > I see a shared_ptr with non-null value and use_count o
> On Nov. 15, 2012, 9:17 p.m., Cliff Jansen wrote:
> > I am going to disagree (with the proposed patch, and agree with Andrew). I
> > managed to reproduce (took closer to 15 minutes on my laptop) and get a
> > similar stack trace.
> >
> > I see a shared_ptr with non-null value and use_count o
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/#review13485
---
I am going to disagree (with the proposed patch, and agree with Andre
> On Nov. 15, 2012, 6:30 p.m., Chug Rolke wrote:
> > Both instances of code kick off a function call into
> > boost::shared_ptr. Before the patch the function
> > is ::operator ::* and after the patch the function is ::get,
> > unsurprisingly. The results are then processed slightly differentl
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/#review13479
---
Ship it!
Both instances of code kick off a function call into
boost
---
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 retu
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8072/
---
Review request for qpid, Andrew Stitcher, Chug Rolke, and Cliff Jansen.
Descript
