> On Nov. 19, 2016, 3:28 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/filedescriptor.hpp, lines 381-384
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52544/diff/7/?file=1565875#file1565875line381>
> >
> >     Do we actually need this? I think the `int` on the rhs should implicit 
> > convert to `WindowsFD` in which case this would be handled by:
> >     
> >     ```
> >     bool operator==(
> >         const os::WindowsFileDescriptor& left,
> >         const os::WindowsFileDescriptor& right);
> >     ```

There are many conversion options and the compiler is not selecting bool 
operator==(
    const os::WindowsFileDescriptor& left,
    const os::WindowsFileDescriptor& right);


- Daniel


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52544/#review156376
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 30, 2016, 7:54 a.m., Daniel Pravat wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52544/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 30, 2016, 7:54 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alex Naparu, Alex Clemmer, Joseph Wu, and Michael 
> Park.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In POSIX the `socket`,`pipe` and the `filedescriptor` are
> represented by an int type. In Windows a socket is kept in a
> `SOCKET` type (64 bit wide), a pipe in a `HANDLE` (64 bit wide) and
> a file descriptor in an int. This class unifies all Windows types.
> In POSIX this class is an int.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp 
> bd085e4e29bbdb2d2baaaeff1d10c0bd95ca65ba 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/filedescriptor.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/filedescriptor.hpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52544/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniel Pravat
> 
>

Reply via email to