> On Feb. 27, 2014, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/abort_msg.hpp, line 27 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/diff/1/?file=505246#file505246line27> > > > > Why ABORT_MSG instead of just ABORT?
I toyed with the idea of having ABORT as a wrapper for abort() for consistency but then dropped that. Also, it was called FATAL_MSG at some point because FATAL clashed with glog. > On Feb. 27, 2014, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/check.hpp, line 84 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/diff/1/?file=505247#file505247line84> > > > > There has always been a bug here: we need to append the error here > > rather than down in the constructor otherwise any appended strings via '<<' > > will end up being written in between (and be confusing and hard to read). > > Just like 'expression', this will let you kill 'error' as an instance > > member too! added file and line here too. > On Feb. 27, 2014, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/check.hpp, lines 89-90 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/diff/1/?file=505247#file505247line89> > > > > I'd prefer to keep the google::LogMessageFatal here to mimic the > > semantics of CHECK. In particular, the LogMessageFatal will include a stack > > trace. so will abort. This means we have no glog dependency in stout. > On Feb. 27, 2014, 10:52 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/sendfile.hpp, lines > > 49-50 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/diff/1/?file=505248#file505248line49> > > > > Why not use UNREACHABLE here? I was just doing a grep/replace for fatal. - Dominic ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/#review35651 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 27, 2014, 11:03 a.m., Dominic Hamon wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 27, 2014, 11:03 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman. > > > Bugs: MESOS-1041 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1041 > > > Repository: mesos-git > > > Description > ------- > > see summary > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am > 5d5a76021900bf27113fe5b730cfd2b6a537d132 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/abort.hpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/check.hpp > 695db20cb1acff036d8d493be4ff4b5e002fdd90 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/sendfile.hpp > 3350929686e5365225f72f48d7c99b42c57fd1ad > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18549/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Dominic Hamon > >
