|
That's fine. LGMT.
Chris
On 3/13/19 8:00 PM, Jean Christophe
Beyler wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review, we could debate here about
reinterpret vs static (my theory/understanding was do static
if all else fails (and then do C style if that fails)) but
really I'm going to do new/delete right after this and so all
those casts will disappear in the next webrev. So in my
opinion if your Looks good can be a LGTM then we will remove
the casts in the next ones.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Jc
Hi
JC,
Looks good. My only question is your use of
reinterpret_cast instead of static_cast. Not an area of
C++ I know much about, other than having just read some
varying opinions that aren't all that good at explaining
what's going on.
thanks,
Chris
On 3/13/19 4:07 PM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Hi all,
Could I get a review of:
I've not tried to do anything special here to keep
the review simple; in the next webrev or two, I'll
move more code to more C++ style and then work on
diagnostic print-outs (in C++ :-)) to figure out the
issues with the bugs related to these tests.
This passed testing on my dev machine and a submit
repo run (which I'm not sure runs these test but still
good to check).
--
|
