From owner-cvs-all Thu Jul 20 6:22:56 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5332037B67D; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:22:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za) by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.15 #1) id 13FGHV-0000zc-00; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:22:29 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Brian Somers Cc: Jordan Hubbard , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Brian Somers , shin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net rcmd.3 rcmd.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:17:13 +0100." <200007201317.OAA01874@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:22:29 +0200 Message-ID: <3819.964099349@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:17:13 +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > I don't think a version bump is required as the function & args > remain the same. The API change is that the *ahost value should now > be free()d by the application whereas before it was already freed by > rcmd() :-) Doesn't that mean that long-running applications that make use of this interface will develop memory leaks unless they're changed? Are you saying that the bump isn't required because new applications don't need to know and old applications won't check? Just want to make sure I understand for the right reasons. ;-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message