-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37903/#review98301
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Minor nits


3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/ip.hpp (line 401)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37903/#comment154658>

    No need for the else block when you return at line 400



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/ip.hpp (line 402)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/37903/#comment154660>

    An alternative could have been:
    
    IP(prefix == 0 ? 0 : 0xffffffff << (32 - prefix))
    
    Will let you decide what is easier to read.
    I like it in terms of not writing IPNetwork twice


- Niklas Nielsen


On Aug. 28, 2015, 1:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37903/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 28, 2015, 1:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3328
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3328
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The previous coding would try to shift a uint32_t value 32 bits to the left; 
> per
> C++ spec, this yields undefined behavior. On my machine, this resulted in
> treating a prefix of 0 as equivalent to a prefix of 32, which is obviously
> wrong.
> 
> Spotted via ubsan: see MESOS-3328.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/ip.hpp 
> 1ad119d54820e97497b1773518875be25ddbf98a 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/ip_tests.cpp 
> b0cbcb38cfcb923ec7c185bacf139ceb0a28924f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37903/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to