On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 11:15 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > Hi Svante, > > Today Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:08 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > > Hi Svante, > > >
> > So you wan one megapatch for PATH_MAX/MAXPATH issues? Isn't it better to > > create smaller patches that can easily be reverted if something goes > > wrong? > > many small patches are fine ... I was just asking, whether you were > plannig to build on this patch OK, I will continue next with rrd_client.c. Is that one built into the library librrd*.so* ? Is there an easy way to test with valgrind, as rrd_deamon.c is, issuing suitable commands? One issue with rrd_client:get_path is the const definitions. In order to free the dynamically allocated strings, to avoid memory leaks const has to be abandoned in some places. OK? > > Another issue is if code should be #ifdef-ed or unconditional, e.g. > > using > > #ifdef MAX_PATH or > > #ifndef MAX_PATH > > ... > > #else > > ... > > #endif > > or completely removing the PATH_MAX (MAXPATH) dependency. What about the > > Win32 port? I haven't looked into that. > > well, if there IS a limit to the path length by the OS, the code > should observe it I think, or how would you deal with this ? What about removing the #ifdef MAXPATH construct from the patch? By dynamically allocating strings the only limitation is by malloc. That should work also for win32? thanks, Svante _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
