E1.33 cherry pick v #1957
E1.33 cherry pick v #1957
Conversation
(cherry picked from commit 2350e26)
(cherry picked from commit 7feb4c3)
(cherry picked from commit 93253cd)
(cherry picked from commit 6ea9f01)
(cherry picked from commit d294042)
(cherry picked from commit d4378b9)
(cherry picked from commit e1e94e3)
(cherry picked from commit d976466)
Still needs some tests added... (cherry picked from commit a5ddef0)
…nto e1.33-cherry-pick
(cherry picked from commit e96154c)
(cherry picked from commit 5961212)
(cherry picked from commit e41fd88)
(cherry picked from commit 7026e60)
(cherry picked from commit 1c8e4ed)
(cherry picked from commit 31c6af0)
(cherry picked from commit 0dc3e4a)
(cherry picked from commit f302dfc)
| /* | ||
| * Size of the header portion. | ||
| */ | ||
| unsigned int BrokerClientEntryRPTPDU::HeaderSize() const { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the inline keyword would probably make perfect sense here. However, one could also keep the code clean and let the compiler make the best decisions. Same for the next function
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll push it to the main PR as if we were to do it, we should do it for all PDUs.
I assume there shouldn't be any knock-ons with the inheritance etc?
| void BrokerClientEntryRPTPDU::PackHeader(OutputStream *stream) const { | ||
| BrokerClientEntryHeader::broker_client_entry_pdu_header header; | ||
| m_header.ClientCid().Pack(header.client_cid); | ||
| stream->Write( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's hope 'stream' is not null here ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per the previous, for now I'll park this, PDU::Pack which is the only code that calls PackHeader/PackData has protection now. I guess we can add it to ALL PackHeader/PackData in one go if we deem it useful.
|
It's finally actually passing the tests too! Please take a final look @kripton ! |
|
... and the compilation checks also look much better now |
2 participants
No description provided.