On segunda-feira, 2 de abril de 2018 20:47:26 PDT Maloor, Kishen wrote: > Consequently, just modifying oc_rep to allocate them dynamically > wouldn’t make the APIs thread-safe.
You shouldn't allocate TinyCBOR objects dynamically. The line that Uze proposed: CborEncoder new_rep = oc_rep_create_root_object(); Would actually work, by returning the object by value and storing it on the stack. It's all the next line that would have a problem: oc_process_baseline_interface(new_rep, request->resource); The & is missing, to pass the CborEncoder object by pointer. That said, what would oc_rep_create_root_object() do? Because if it's a sub- encoder of a global encoder, then making this change does not help at all and thread-safety is not achieved. You need the outermost CborEncoder as well as the buffer it's writing to, to be present in the encoding function. PS: I have a pending task but no time to complete the implementation of CborEncoder writing to platform-specific chunked buffers. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
