----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/#review113580 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/ls.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/#comment174321> Let's add the preservation comment here as well. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/ls.hpp (lines 36 - 42) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/#comment174422> If this is the only section that is different between the POSIX and windows version, does it make sense to factor out this size calculation, and leave a common `ls` implementation? 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/ls.hpp (line 45) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/#comment174320> let's put backticks around malloc. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/ls.hpp (line 66) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/#comment174319> Let's add a comment here like you did for malloc: `Preserve `readdir_r` error.` - Joris Van Remoortere On Jan. 4, 2016, 11:20 a.m., Alex Clemmer wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 4, 2016, 11:20 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Artem Harutyunyan, Joris Van Remoortere, and Joseph > Wu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Windows: Implemented `stout/os/windows/ls.hpp`. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/ls.hpp > 7dba79d31559d15a3e84eff506ce7df3e57cf5f3 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/ls.hpp > 5b6fba13ce215af5801fd0867f6e774e100689ca > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39802/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Alex Clemmer > >
