> On May 19, 2016, 8:48 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/read.hpp, line 118
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/47585/diff/1/?file=1387867#file1387867line118>
> >
> > Let's just wrap this in a `std::unique_ptr<char[]>` instead!
>
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> +1, or just a `std::string` since most probably the reflex might be to *always* use
`Owned` instead of `std::unique_ptr`, but that one cannot be used to manage dynamic arrays.
>
> Jan Schlicht wrote:
> We could also use a `std::vector<char>` or instead, like
> ```
> std::vector<char> buffer;
> buffer.reserve(BUFSIZ);
> ```
>
> Jan Schlicht wrote:
> Please see the discussion at https://reviews.apache.org/r/47481/ on why this isn't
any of the suggested types.
Copying here for reference (from https://reviews.apache.org/r/47481/):
I agree that this needs to be delete[]. Thanks for that.
I can see why this bug was introduced over time though. If you look back at revision 1 of
this patch, I wasn't using temporary storage at all, which would have avoided this bug altogether.
Unfortunately, this approach was vetoed by the reviewer, leading to revision 2, which used
a stack allocated array. This also didn't have the bug, but introduced other "stylistic" problems
that the reviewers weren't happy with. In revision 3, I used a std::vector<char> as
you suggest, but it never made it back to reviewboard because it was vetoed in external feedback.
As a compromise, I started using a unique_ptr<> in revision 4, but this was vetoed as
well. Looks like I overlooked the proper delete to use after 5 revisions through a very simple
patch.
I would personally do away with the temporary storage and go with the approach I have in revision
1 on review board. If we are going the temporary storage route, I would prefer the std::vector<char>
approach as you suggest.
Need to convince a shepherd though.
- Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/47585/#review133900
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2016, 2:49 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/47585/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated May 19, 2016, 2:49 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Bernd Mathiske, and Benjamin Mahler.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> 3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/read.hpp c39140fc17c5b4869c3a90c187ebcb9c284397f4
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47585/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jan Schlicht
>
>
|