On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:55 +0000, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Michael Gmelin <gre...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar <mar...@xcllnt.net> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> [Moving to current@] > > > >> > > > >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm <pe...@wemm.org> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Surprises: > > > >>> * nagios doesn't like w / uptime anymore. libxo perhaps? > > > >> [...] > > > > > > Adding xo_finish() to w.c line 268 just right before exit(0); fixes that > > > issue (I don't know libxo well enough to say if this is the proper fix or > > > just a workaround, but it seems logical to me). > > > > > > > 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. > > I suspect that for most programs with more than a few exit points, > adding an atexit() registration to call xo_finish() is going to be a > good odea. >
I assume there is some sort of xo_start() call if there's an xo_finish(), so the library could do that for itself? -- Ian _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
