On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 02:41 +0200, Steve Schnepp wrote: > Le 7 mai 2014 16:10, "Tobias Oetiker" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Today Svante Signell wrote: > > > > Well, the PATH_MAX patches affect all architectures, but without > them > > > rrdtool FTBFS for Hurd. For other architectures, like Linux, the > code > > > should work the same. With the patches memory is allocated on the > heap, > > > without on the stack. There should be no memory leaks in either > case. > > > > ok :-) that might be a bit tricky > > Would it be acceptable to revert to malloc() if and only if PATH_MAX > is not defined ? > > That would nicely minimize the patch impact on already working > platforms.
People are advising you to not have several code patch to ease maintenance. Of course such a decision is up to Tobi. The reason I'm asking here is that I would like to be sure there are no problems before proposing the patches. They are non-trivial. _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
