> On Feb. 5, 2017, 12:59 a.m., Alex Clemmer wrote:
> > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/dup.hpp, line 20
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/54595/diff/6/?file=1624397#file1624397line20>
> >
> > Tiny nits: Should we `#include` `try.hpp` and `unreachable.hpp` also?
> > Also, in this case, I thought standard practice was to include
> > `stout/os/int_fd.hpp` instead of the platform-specific header? That's what
> > we do everywhere else.
(1) Included `try.hpp` and `unreachable.hpp`.
(2) The pattern I've followed is to include `os/int_fd.hpp` if I'm actually
using `int_fd`, and using it like an `int`.
I've included `os/windows/fd.hpp` in Widows specific files, because
including `int_fd.hpp` and using `WindowsFD` seems wrong,
and using `int_fd` and using member functions like `type()` seem also wrong.
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/54595/#review164277
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 5, 2017, 6:14 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/54595/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Feb. 5, 2017, 6:14 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Daniel Pravat and Joris Van Remoortere.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Introduced an `os::dup` abstraction in stout.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> 3rdparty/stout/include/Makefile.am 53d04a9b6c4a0d8b35d3c84ef24d619fdb8a2c82
> 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os.hpp
> ed6fec3ac1c1f9dfb0585178401f4b552822a0a1
> 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/dup.hpp PRE-CREATION
> 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/dup.hpp PRE-CREATION
> 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/dup.hpp PRE-CREATION
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54595/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
