, using gcc 4.1.2, make and make check (any reason you
didn't use the more standard make test?) succeeded for me, so I
guess I will have to just wait to update to protobuf-2.0.2 until I can
move myself to the newer gcc.
Thanks in any case for the help.
--edan
On Oct 8, 9:07 pm, Kenton Varda [EMAIL
. I was hoping there
is a prettier way? Any help is appreciated.
--edan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
edan: Sorry, protocol buffers doesn't provide any magic solution here.
Maybe you could separate your message into two messages, one which only
contains data that both clients want, and one with the rest?
Hm... I don't see how to separate cleanly given that part of my problem
to this behavior? Or
is there some other advantage that I'll miss out on by changing all my
strings to bytes?
Thanks
--edan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group
parts of the message that we already
serialized? Let's also assume that most of the places we are likely to run
out of space is while we are adding more and more elements to repeated
fields.
Thanks for any help.
--edan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
I have the following class:
package PB_SimpleMessage;
message SimpleMessage
{
required RootNode header = 1;
required RootNode payload = 2;
}
message RootNode
{
repeated string parameters = 1;
}
In my code i am do the following:
I looks like a good workaround - thanks for the info.
I will wait and see if Kenton is planning to fix this, then decide my next
steps.
--edan
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
edan wrote:
I happily upgraded to 2.3.0 - I always like to take
Is there a GCC flag which would allow me to compile the protobuf package
itself with different warning settings for headers vs. source files?
No, I can't imagine there is. But what you could do is create a unit test
that runs during make check whose sole purpose is to include all the
headers,
--edan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http
- Do you use the hard-core memory management methods of RepeatedPtrField,
like AddAllocated()? If so, investigate these calls to make sure that the
pointers are valid and the ownership transfer is being respected.
No, we're not using those.
In gdb you have to put single-quotes around
I agree that this is confusing and makes people wonder if it's a real
release.
Since the 3rd digit in the release numbering scheme seems to be unused since
2.1.0, why can't this be changed to 2.4.1? I think this would make it look
far more official.
--edan
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Joshua
11 matches
Mail list logo
