From owner-cvs-all Thu Jul 20 7: 4:19 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.freebsd.org.uk [194.242.139.170]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B465937BA99; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:02:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (hak.nat.Awfulhak.org [172.31.0.12]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA80112; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:01:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02340; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:01:05 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200007201401.PAA02340@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: Brian Somers , Jordan Hubbard , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Brian Somers , shin@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/net rcmd.3 rcmd.c In-Reply-To: Message from Sheldon Hearn of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:22:29 +0200." <3819.964099349@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:01:05 +0100 From: Brian Somers 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? Yes, all existing applications will now have a memory leak. This is bad, but not as bad as the alternatives (see my other post cc'd to cvs-committers). Thinking about it, you could argue that a version bump is necessary so that new applications that know about needing to free(*ahost) will be linked against the library with the higher version number and will never end up freeing *ahost when it's been returned by an old library that had already free()d it. The alternative would be to bump __FreeBSD_version for this purpose. Whaddaya think ? > Just want to make sure I understand for the right reasons. ;-) > > Ciao, > Sheldon. -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message