On 2/9/21 3:54 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:41:29PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
On 2/9/21 3:26 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:19:00PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
Hello,
It seems that I didn't test sniproxy deep enough after the patch removal for
On 2/9/21 3:26 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:19:00PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
Hello,
It seems that I didn't test sniproxy deep enough after the patch removal for
STAILQ_*. There are core dumps with sniproxy without the patch.
I think this needs deeper investigation.
Hello,
It seems that I didn't test sniproxy deep enough after the patch removal
for STAILQ_*. There are core dumps with sniproxy without the patch.
Here is a diff which brings back the patch and also solves the
compilation error with the -fno-common change.
I need to check if it's possible
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:41:29PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
>
> On 2/9/21 3:26 PM, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:19:00PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > It seems that I didn't test sniproxy deep enough after the patch removal
> > > for
> > >
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:19:00PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems that I didn't test sniproxy deep enough after the patch removal for
> STAILQ_*. There are core dumps with sniproxy without the patch.
I think this needs deeper investigation. Could you share a backtrace or
a
