aron
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51068/#review145706
---
On Aug. 13, 2016, 8:08 a.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
>
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/51068/#review145930
---
On Aug. 13, 2016, 8:08 a.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> --
/
Testing
---
make && make check
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
d by making sure no segfault occurs when rebuilding Mesos with this fix
and pointing our framework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was exposing the issue.
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
/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
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
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:
>
>
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
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
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
/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
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
/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
slightly). Most 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
-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
://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
/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__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
/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
/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
> 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
/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
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
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:
>
> --
,
Aaron Wood
-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
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
/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
-
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
-------
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
-------
/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
/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
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
. 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
------
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/
> -
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,
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
://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/
> ---
---
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:
>
>
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
& 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,
worked with both gcc and clang.
Ran `make && make check && make bench`.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
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
). 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
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.
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/
> -
). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
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
---
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/
> --
-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
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
-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/
> ---
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
-----
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 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
, 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
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
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
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
,
Aaron Wood
with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
% overhead (optimizations brings this down
slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower.
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.
f/
Testing
---
Verified by making sure no segfault occurs when rebuilding Mesos with this fix
and pointing our framework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was exposing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
e/validation.cpp abd9b1248
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55480/diff/
Testing
---
Verified by making sure no segfault occurs when rebuilding Mesos with this fix
and pointing our framework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was causing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
Wood
On Jan. 12, 2017, 11:23 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/55480/
> ---
&g
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/55480/#review161484
-------
On Jan. 12, 2017, 11:52 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> --
s which was exposing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
x
and pointing our framework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was causing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
ith this fix
and pointing our framework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was exposing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
mework at it. Our framework is currently not generating v4
UUIDs which was exposing the issue.
Thanks,
Aaron Wood
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
