----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#review114644 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/reparsepoint.hpp (line 108) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175503> Remove newline. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/reparsepoint.hpp (line 123) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175504> Remove newline. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/reparsepoint.hpp (lines 128 - 147) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175512> I would suggest something like the following: ``` const WCHAR* substituteName = data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.PathBuffer + data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.SubstituteNameOffset / sizeof(WCHAR); const size_t substituteNameLength = data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.SubstituteNameLength / sizeof(WCHAR); const WCHAR* printName = data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.PathBuffer + data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.PrintNameOffset / sizeof(WCHAR); const size_t printNameLength = data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.PrintNameLength / sizeof(WCHAR); return SymbolicLink{ std::wstring(substituteName, substituteNameLength), std::wstring(printName, printNameLength), data.SymbolicLinkReparseBuffer.Flags}; ``` The parts I care about are: (1) `s/int/size_t` for indices/lengths, (2) removing the `struct` in `struct SymbolicLink`, and (3) constructing `SymbolicLink` in-place. I don't think the index is worth saving. But this is probably more of a personal taste. So just take parts of it that you like. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/reparsepoint.hpp (lines 190 - 191) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175505> ``` return WindowsError( "Could not open handle for symlink at path '" + absolutePath + "'"); ``` 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp (line 27) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175509> `s/time_t/`time_t`/` 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp (lines 40 - 41) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175507> Add new line. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp (lines 51 - 52) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175508> Add new line. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/windows.hpp (lines 166 - 169) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/#comment175502> Is this supposed to return `int` like the ones below? or are they supposed to return `bool`? - Michael Park On Jan. 15, 2016, 1:58 a.m., Alex Clemmer wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 15, 2016, 1:58 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Artem Harutyunyan, Michael Hopcroft, Joris Van > Remoortere, and Joseph Wu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Windows: Implemented stout/os/stat.hpp`. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/Makefile.am > ec851dcb08d938defeb6066810011e003d594b29 > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/reparsepoint.hpp > PRE-CREATION > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/internal/windows/symlink.hpp > PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/stat.hpp > ffe074830ef90f492990bf695e686c885b9a155c > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/stat.hpp > 5b38b9af654d7d1c574f0cc573083b66693ced1d > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/windows.hpp > 27edf1b4f8647a2720f2962eafa110d694b3baed > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39803/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` from autotools on Ubuntu 15. > `make check` from CMake on OS X 10.10. > Ran `check` project in VS on Windows 10. > > > Thanks, > > Alex Clemmer > >
