Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:56:55 -0800
From:      "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>
To:        Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: nagios vs w/uptime
Message-ID:  <CAHM0Q_OYrke6maUfanoJoc%2Bc=grGgVZRH7co9noFmO2BLcwLrw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1423603964.80968.28.camel@freebsd.org>
References:  <54DA617A.4090309@wemm.org> <A3904FE0-2D03-4290-B29E-395E8C6F6F96@xcllnt.net> <4A76A371-B573-4E62-BE78-94944963FFD0@freebsd.org> <E36EA56E-3B9E-4C40-B984-E7BE97F0175E@freebsd.org> <1423603964.80968.28.camel@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> I wonder if that implies that any non-normal exit from a program that
> has been xo'd will result in the loss of output that would not have been
> lost before the xo changes?  That could lead to all kinds of subtle
> failures of existing scripts and apps.

Well, so long as the app doesn't crash in a way that would bypass it
shouldn't registering that with atexit() flush any pending output?

-K



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_OYrke6maUfanoJoc%2Bc=grGgVZRH7co9noFmO2BLcwLrw>