----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
