Today Svante Signell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 07:56 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > > 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" <t...@oetiker.ch> 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 ... > > Yes Hurd does not have much penetration yet, right. Hopefully that will > change in due time. I can make the code conditional but as said before, > but it makes code maintenance more complicated. When the malloc/free > solution is bug-free there is no need to distinguish between *nix* > systems, only *nix* and windows. > > Additionally, I normally get my patches reviewed by the Hurd developers, > and I can do this for the PATH_MAX patches too. It is considered sloppy > coding to use PATH_MAX, see > https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/community/gsoc/project_ideas/maxpath.html > and > http://insanecoding.blogspot.se/2007/11/pathmax-simply-isnt.html > > In Debian there is an increasing number of people adhering to this too. > > You either use a fixed number of elements when allocating an array on > the stack or malloc/free for the heap. I think it is worthy the effort > to get things right once and for all.
ok :-) how about a pull request ? cheers tobi > > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland www.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch +41 62 775 9902
_______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers