Re: RFR: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation [v7]

2020-09-24 Thread Michael McMahon
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below > incorporated. I expect there will be a few more > iterations before integrating. > On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote: >>> >>> As I mentioned the other day, I wasn't able to use

Re: RFR: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation [v6]

2020-09-24 Thread Michael McMahon
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below > incorporated. I expect there will be a few more > iterations before integrating. > On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote: >>> >>> As I mentioned the other day, I wasn't able to use

Re: RFR(S): 8252407: Build failure with gcc-8+ and asan

2020-09-24 Thread Alan Bateman
On 24/09/2020 09:59, Kim Barrett wrote: If possible, my preference would be to avoid the pragma cruft and write the code in such a way that gcc8/9 without asan doesn't warn, and gcc10 doesn't warn with or without asan. I've kind of lost track in the discussion of all the variants whether that's

Re: RFR(S): 8252407: Build failure with gcc-8+ and asan

2020-09-24 Thread Kim Barrett
> On Sep 23, 2020, at 2:10 AM, Eric Liu wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > Sorry for the delay. > > This patch removes a redundant string copy in NetworkInterface.c to avoid > string-truncation > warning. Other warnings we talked before, which are unable to completely fix > in different version > of g