> On Jan. 29, 2016, 7:50 p.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp, line 624
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42972/diff/1/?file=1225888#file1225888line624>
> >
> >     Not yours: Should we add a `CHECK_NOTNULL` before this statement now?

Is there value in doing that? In principle, we'd need a `CHECK_NOTNULL` before 
dereferencing _any_ pointer, which seems like it would add a lot of clutter...


- Neil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42972/#review116993
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 29, 2016, 7:42 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/42972/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 29, 2016, 7:42 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> stout: Fixed typo (unintended inequality between pointer value and 0).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/flags/flags.hpp 
> 2a188459465a5203c56d788a74e69d403790c5bf 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42972/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to