Hi Svante, Today Svante Signell wrote:
> 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. since the hurd has probably a rather low penetration, and if the code path is essentially just adding extra complexity to compensate for a problem with a particular system, I don't see a problem only having it active on a particular platform ... we already have several such instances to deal with windows issues ... cheers tobi > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland www.oetiker.ch [email protected] +41 62 775 9902
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
