[opensource-dev] Review Request: Crash in LLRemoteParcelInfoProcessor::processParcelInfoReply()

Merov Linden merov at lindenlab.com
Thu Dec 16 08:29:40 PST 2010


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/#review35
-----------------------------------------------------------


Putting the "oi++" in the same line as the affectation is unclear. Please put that on the next line and write a comment as to why this increment must happen as soon as the affectation to cur_oi is done (the whole point of the patch). I'm afraid that someone reviewing casually the code would "simplify" this by putting the increment back in the "for" statement.

- Merov


On 2010-12-15 11:27:50, Kitty Barnett wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-12-15 11:27:50)
> 
> 
> Review request for Viewer.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> erase() on a multimap will only invalidate iterators that point to the element being erased so pre-incrementing the loop iterator should prevent it from getting invalidated when an observer calls removeObserver() as part of its processParcelInfo() implementation.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug VWR-24207.
>     http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-24207
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   indra/newview/llremoteparcelrequest.cpp UNKNOWN 
> 
> Diff: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/24/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kitty
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20101216/ac12754d/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list