- 24 Jan, 2017 1 commit
-
-
Francis Dupont authored
-
- 16 Dec, 2015 2 commits
-
-
Marcin Siodelski authored
-
Marcin Siodelski authored
-
- 13 Jun, 2015 1 commit
-
-
Francis Dupont authored
-
- 28 Jan, 2014 1 commit
-
-
Stephen Morris authored
-
- 22 Jan, 2014 1 commit
-
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
- 21 Sep, 2012 1 commit
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
offset values can actually be larger than max_labellen (63). we should have check label length field of the name data. added tests that would trigger this bug.
-
- 23 Aug, 2012 1 commit
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
added a test case for it and updated the doc. rbtree/domaintree was modified to avoid such operations.
-
- 30 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
- 29 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
in response to buildbot report. confirmed the fix on the box, and should be trivial. so directly committing.
-
- 27 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
- typos - few code fixes - test updates
-
- 25 Jul, 2012 5 commits
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
- 21 Jul, 2012 2 commits
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
these were basically for this serialization, but now that we have a different version of serialization/deserialization, we don't need them for this purpose. Until we see the need for them for specific purposes, it'd be better to clean them up.
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
-
- 20 Jul, 2012 6 commits
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
This simplifies some internal part of the code, and eliminates the need for offsets_size_ (so it's removed). This change is a preparation for making the "from raw data" construction more generic to support non absolute labels. This is a purely internal refactoring, and public interfaces aren't changed.
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
if one is absoulte and the other is not, they won't have common labels, so the main logic can detect their relationship is NONE. We don't need to handle this case separately for performance (if that was the reason) because we generally don't expect to do this type of mismatch comparison. unit tests need to be adjusted because the order is now non 0.
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
if nlabels == 0, it must not be absolute because otherwise the other should also be absolute, in which case nlabes != 0.
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
the originally intended behavior was to return non 0 order for these cases, so this point was adjusted. the code was also simplified by removing unnecessary conditions like: - ((last_label_ < getLabelCount()) || - (other.last_label_ < other.getLabelCount())))) { this is meaningless because getLabelCount() is last_label_ - first_label_, so the codntion is actually first_label_ < 0, which is always false. whatever the real intent of this condition was, such additional checks didn't seem to be necessary for the intended behavior of compare() anyway, so I simply removed them. some test cases were adjusted for the change, and some were added to confirm related cases that were not tested before.
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
-
- 12 Jul, 2012 3 commits
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
Jelte Jansen authored
- style fix in return value - updated header documentation - added common label count checks to tests
-
- 11 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
- 09 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
-
- 06 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Jelte Jansen authored
instead of reference to Name - moved actual name comparison code to labelsequence - removed Name reference - replaced by data, offsets, and offset_size values - added 'raw' constructor for LabelSequence
-
- 05 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
-
- 04 Jul, 2012 6 commits
-
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
- 02 Jul, 2012 2 commits
-
-
JINMEI Tatuya authored
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-
- 01 Jul, 2012 1 commit
-
-
Mukund Sivaraman authored
-