On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 00:54 +0200, Thomas Anders wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
> > What are the advantages to keeping these two libraries separate?
>
> What (amount of) code out there would only depend on the agent lib
> (and not the helpers lib) if the dependencies were clean?
agentxtrap (the agen
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 01:27:00 +0200, Thomas Anders
> said:
>> I'm not sure which (if any) of the extension mechanisms rely on
>> the helpers library, and which just on the agent lib.
TA> I would certainly be interested to know!
I suspect in theory it'd be nice if they were separate.
Dave Shield wrote:
> I'm not sure which (if any) of the extension mechanisms rely on
> the helpers library, and which just on the agent lib.
I would certainly be interested to know!
+Thomas
--
_
On 25 May 2010 23:54, Thomas Anders wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
>> What are the advantages to keeping these two libraries separate?
>
> What (amount of) code out there would only depend on the agent lib
> (and not the helpers lib) if the dependencies were clean?
Presumably just an agent (or subag
Dave Shield wrote:
> What are the advantages to keeping these two libraries separate?
What (amount of) code out there would only depend on the agent lib (and not the
helpers lib) if the dependencies were clean?
That code (with its dependencies) would benefit from having a smaller
footprint, then
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Thomas Anders
> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> What's the "business case"? I suggest to look at this from a users
> perspective: what exactly do they get in exchange for a backwards
> incompatible change?
>
> Thi
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:27:38 +0100, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> What are the advantages to keeping these two libraries separate?
Well, I should speak up since I created the separation.
The reality is that it's just a "functional" difference. IE, the
helpers was designed to be all the co
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 20:10:59 +0200, Bart Van Assche
> said:
BVA> +static void __attribute__((constructor))
No... I wish that was portable, but it'll certainly cause problems.
Cool solution, but not one we can consider.
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all replies to net-snmp-coders@lists
Hi All,
Please help with the below issue.
The function clear_context () called from shutdown_agent( ) is causing a
double free.
#0 0x00110402 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x00b2f690 in raise () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x00b30f91 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6
#3 0x00b679eb in __libc_message ()
On 25 May 2010 06:35, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> And a third alternative is to merge libnetsnmphelpers into libnetsnmpagent.
I was going to ask whether that idea had been dropped.
It seemed to be the proposed solution from my brief look at the
Library layering page.
That would seem to have the a
10 matches
Mail list logo
