----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54304/#review157816 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/address.hpp (lines 358 - 371) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54304/#comment228418> Is it possible to do something more like: ``` { switch (address.family()) { case Address::Family::INET: { return stream << inet::Address(address.sockaddr.in); } #ifndef __WINDOWS__ case Address::Family::UNIX: { return stream << unix::Address(address.sockaddr.un); } #endif // __WINDOWS__ } } ``` - Benjamin Mahler On Dec. 2, 2016, 10:48 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/54304/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 2, 2016, 10:48 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benjamin Hindman. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The expectation here was that only one case would match so no > intentional fall-through would happen. Make this explicit by adding > break statements. > > This was noted by coverity in CID 1396669. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/address.hpp > 01bc065b45ff1a4c38f245b49078cc06dbb11249 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54304/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` (OS X). > > This is not expected to be a functional change. > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
