On 04/11/2016 09:16 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 04/09/2016 10:50 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> In principle this is a great step forward, but I would like confirmation >> about the portability side of things before it actually gets merged.
> Me too. [...] > > FWIW, the patch did compile fine on a few Linux boxes and one MacOS laptop. * the existing code causes problems and violates C++ rules * the fix does not have known problems * the fix has been tested on several platforms * nobody has committed to report results for untested platforms * the Squid Project provides no access to those untested platforms * testing this code is difficult so the set of volunteers is tiny Given the above, I suggest to apply polished changes to trunk and see what happens on those untested and hard-to-get-to platforms. Any objections or better ideas? Thank you, Alex. > please keep in mind that beyond [unlikely] compilation > failures, it would be difficult for non-developers to confirm that the > patch does not break anything, especially without somebody writing > detailed instructions on how to do that: AFAICT, the code in question > does not affect any functionality that is both enabled by default and > visible in Squid logs or responses. > It would also be great to test whether the clang exclusion was motivated > by the same outdated (or even wrong) reasons as the other hacks around > this code -- we may be able to remove that last exclusion if those tests > are successful. Again, this will require a person who knows how to read > Valgrind reports and can test --enable-xmalloc-statistics effects. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
