> 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 > >
