is applied to
MESOS_CPPFLAGS thus failing the whole build.
Diffs
-
3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am c33ae4306
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54950/diff/
Testing
---
Build all of Mesos from source.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
is applied
to `MESOS_CPPFLAGS` thus failing the whole build.
Diffs
-
src/Makefile.am abcf7eed7
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54949/diff/
Testing
---
Build all of Mesos from source.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/896944ea-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-b3bb-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/files/2016/11/02/896944ea-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/02/046b37a9-5aff-4543-b3bb-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review156367
---
On Nov. 9, 2016, 7:37 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
>
with
> > `CHAR_MAX` in the first place...?
>
> Aaron Wood wrote:
> I'm not 100% clear on this but my guess is that it's from a negotiated
> max body size between the server and clients within Mesos...?
>
> James Peach wrote:
> AFAICT this is assigning the
& make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
add a .h at the time :)
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/#review156238
---
On Nov. 7,
enerated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/#review156238
-------
On Nov. 7, 2016, 4:45 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To re
used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
,
Aaron Wood
/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
in 2015
so I figured it was best no to say v2016.09.16.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/#review154526
---
On Nov. 9, 2016, 7:05 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> --
-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:33 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/Makefile.am, line 120
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/diff/7/?file=1550864#file1550864line120>
> >
> > Not sure we want to remove the existing `-Werror`.
>
> Aaron Wood wrote:
&g
/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/strings_tests.cpp 7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/896944ea-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:33 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/Makefile.am, line 120
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/diff/7/?file=1550864#file1550864line120>
> >
> > Not sure we want to remove the existing `-Werror`.
>
> Aaron Wood wrote:
&g
r
modification done in a separate patch.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/#review154526
-------
-
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#review154527
---
On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> --
r
modification done in a separate patch.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review154524
-------
and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/tests/os_tests.cpp 0b7ee07
3rdparty/stout/tests/strings_tests.cpp 7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/#review154529
---
On Oct. 27, 2016, 7:32 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatica
/subprocess_tests.cpp 0dc1c62
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
ly, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#review154527
---
On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail.
t;overall build process more to fix that issue.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review154524
-----
-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:35 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/
> ---
is is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#review154527
-------
On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an
-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt
No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
r/52695/#review154527
---
On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/
> --
What do you think?
Same comment as above for your first comment.
I agree with what you're saying about the casting here. I'll swap it around.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/#review154530
---
). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
3rdparty/stout/tests/os_tests.cpp 0b7ee07
3rdparty/stout/tests/strings_tests.cpp 7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
--------
On Oct. 21, 2016, 6:29 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/
> -
worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/process_tests.cpp 3936f47
3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp c8350cf
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/#review153715
---
On Oct. 21, 2016, 6:31 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52754/
> ---
ttps://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/#review153025
---
On Oct. 21, 2016, 6:29 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, v
`-fPIE` only to shared libs.
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review153713
---
On Oct
th` is `ssize_t` (set on line 235)
- Aaron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/#review153024
---
On Oct. 14,
------
On Oct. 14, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/
> -
. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
://reviews.apache.org/r/52886/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/subprocess_tests.cpp c8350cf
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
645/#comment221381>
Move these into `configure.ac`.
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 11, 2016, 10:47 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.
tps://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#comment221282>
Only use `-fstack-protector-strong` if we have GCC >= 4.9.
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 11, 2016, 10:47 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To rep
org/r/52696/#comment221284>
Only use `-fstack-protector-strong` if we have GCC >= 4.9.
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 11, 2016, 10:47 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To rep
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran make && make check && make bench.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
and another RR for
the unused code removals.
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 10, 2016, 3:51 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
645/#comment220913>
http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8186
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=commitdiff;h=39683064bbccb4008f239262cb681a970bf53603
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 10, 2016, 7:50 p.m., Aaron Wood
east on OS X due to these warnings being treated as hard errors:
```
clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-pthread'
clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-pie'
```
- Aaron Wood
On Oct. 10, 2016, 7:50 p.m., Aaro
and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
optimizations and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
with and without optimizations and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
with and without optimizations and without
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52645/#review152008
-------
On Oct. 10, 2016, 3:42 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
>
/stout/tests/strings_tests.cpp 7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
,
Aaron Wood
On Oct. 7, 2016, 10:15 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
> > (1) Do we need to make the `CXXFLAGS` conditional on being supported by the
> > current compiler? Seems like these flags are quite specific to (certain
> > versions of?) gcc/clang.
> >
> > (2) You should split t
/stout/tests/strings_tests.cpp 7dd3301
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
optimizations. Overall the performance
hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52647/diff/
Testing
---
Made sure compilation, tests, and benchmarks worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
enerated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51068/#review145930
---
On Aug. 17, 2016, 6:21 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated
te the promise after satisfying it. Can
> > you add more detail as to why you're making this change?
>
> Aaron Wood wrote:
> Hi Ben, thanks for reviewing this patch! Can I ask you the same thing
> that I asked in my most recent comment here?
> https://github.com/apache/m
101 - 200 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
