1. 14 Oct, 2019 1 commit
    • Vitali Lovich's avatar
      Suppress MSVC warnings in headers files · 93e5be76
      Vitali Lovich authored
      For Visual Studio we have to wrap the headers with push/pop pragmas
      at the top and bottom of the file.
      
      Define common macros for suppress/unsuppress KJ & the appropriate macros
      for CAPNP begin/end header wrappers. Because there's a chicken egg
      problem the KJ_BEGIN_HEADER/CAPNP_BEGIN_HEADER macros are placed below
      all includes to ensure that the appropriate common.h file has been
      sourced.
      93e5be76
  2. 12 Aug, 2018 1 commit
  3. 30 Jun, 2018 1 commit
  4. 11 Jan, 2018 1 commit
    • Kenton Varda's avatar
      Replace all include guards with #pragma once. · 677a52ab
      Kenton Varda authored
      @kloepper pointed out a while back that every compiler you've ever heard of supports this. Plus, it's more concise, it's not prone to copy-paste errors, and it looks nicer.
      
      At the time I wanted to remain consistent and I didn't feel like spending the time to update all my existing code. But, every time I've added a new header since I've cursed the include guard, so I finally broke down and changed it.
      677a52ab
  5. 28 Dec, 2017 1 commit
  6. 11 Apr, 2017 1 commit
  7. 07 Apr, 2017 1 commit
  8. 31 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  9. 30 Mar, 2017 2 commits
    • Kenton Varda's avatar
      Remame Guarded -> Bounded. · 168cb630
      Kenton Varda authored
      168cb630
    • Kenton Varda's avatar
      WIP use bounded types -- all tests passing. · 093fac4a
      Kenton Varda authored
      TODO:
      - Rename Guarded to Bounded?
      - Consider bounded array (where size and indexes are bounded quantities).
      - Implement non-CAPNP_DEBUG_TYPES fallback.
        - Don't allow casting kj::maxValue to bounded type, this won't work right when not using debug types!
      - Verify that this change doesn't hurt performance.
      093fac4a
  10. 24 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  11. 08 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  12. 07 Mar, 2017 1 commit
  13. 29 Dec, 2016 1 commit
  14. 02 Oct, 2016 1 commit
  15. 10 May, 2016 1 commit
  16. 06 Apr, 2016 1 commit
  17. 02 Apr, 2016 2 commits
  18. 01 Apr, 2016 1 commit
  19. 26 Mar, 2016 1 commit
    • Matthew Maurer's avatar
      Fix uninitialized members of ListBuilder · 47b92d31
      Matthew Maurer authored
      Adding a `KJ_DASSERT` in the `setListPointer` logic flagged
      non-word-multiple data sections in `INLINE_COMPOSITE` lists, which
      should be impossible. This traced back to uninitialized member variables
      in `ListBuilder` in the case that it was created from a null pointer.
      47b92d31
  20. 20 Mar, 2016 1 commit
    • Matthew Maurer's avatar
      Add Canonicalization · 5db2c8f8
      Matthew Maurer authored
      The user facing API is in MessageReader and MessageBuilder
      
      {MessageBuilder,MessageReader}::isCanonical verifies the canonicity of a
      message. This is both useful for debugging and for knowing if a received
      message can be used for hashes, bytewise equality, etc.
      
      MessageBuilder::canonicalRoot(Reader) can be used to write a canonical
      message on a best effort basis, and checks itself using isCanonical.
      It should succeed as long as the MessageBuilder in question:
      * Has a first segment which is long enough to contain the message
      * Has not been used before
      
      Tests have been added in canonicalize-test.c++ which verify that for
      crafted examples of canonicalization errors, isCanonical will reject,
      and for a canonicalized version of the standard test message, it will
      accept.
      5db2c8f8
  21. 13 Nov, 2015 1 commit
  22. 24 Jul, 2015 1 commit
  23. 22 Jul, 2015 1 commit
  24. 08 Jul, 2015 1 commit
  25. 03 Jul, 2015 1 commit
    • Kenton Varda's avatar
      Refactor how messages are imbued with a capability table. · 5413038b
      Kenton Varda authored
      **The problem**
      
      The methods MessageReader::initCapTable() and MessageBuilder::getCapTable() always felt rather hacky. initCapTable() in particular feels like something that should be handled by the constructor. However, in practice, the cap table is often initialized based on a table encoded within the message itself. That is, an RPC message contains a "payload" which includes both the application-level message structure and a table of capabilities. The cap table has to be processed first, then initCapTable() is called on the overall message, before the application structure can safely be read.
      
      The really weird part about this is that even though the cap table only applies to one branch of the message (the payload), it is set on the *whole* MessageReader. This implies, for example, that it would be impossible to have a message that contains multiple payloads. We haven't had any need for such a thing, but an implemnetation that has such artificial limitations feels very wrong.
      
      MessageBuilder has similar issues going in the opposite direction.
      
      All of this ugliness potentially gets worse when we introduce "membranes". We want a way to intercept capabilities as they are being read from or written to an RPC payload. Currently, the only plausible way to do that is, again, to apply a transformation to all capabilities in the message. In practice it seems like this would work out OK, but it again feels wrong -- we really want to take a single Reader or Builder and "wrap" it so that transformations are applied on capabilities read/written through it.
      
      **The solution**
      
      This change fixes the problem by adding a new pointer to each struct/list Reader/Builder that tracks the current cap table. So, now a Reader or Builder for a particular sub-object can be "imbued" with a cap table without affecting any other existing Readers/Builders pointing into the same message. The cap table is inherited by child Readers/Builders obtained through the original one.
      
      This approach matches up nicely with membranes, which should make their implementation nice and clean.
      
      This change unfortunately means that Readers and Builders are now bigger, possibly with some performance impact.
      5413038b
  26. 23 Jun, 2015 1 commit
  27. 03 May, 2015 2 commits
  28. 17 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  29. 03 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  30. 01 Apr, 2015 1 commit
  31. 25 Feb, 2015 1 commit
  32. 12 Dec, 2014 1 commit
  33. 24 Nov, 2014 3 commits
  34. 22 Nov, 2014 1 commit
  35. 09 Nov, 2014 1 commit