It seems that the following commit has introduced a regression for the
dev/sysmon/t_swsensor atf tests (for details, see test results at
http://screamer.whooppee.com/amd64-results/4722_1_atf.html)
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Thu Dec 13 20:06:42 UTC 2012
Modifi
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:53:24AM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
While we're making sure to free() things, should we not also defend
against memory leaks in the case where an option is used more than once?
While we are here, I wonder why sysmon(9) does
On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:30 PM, John Nemeth wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:00am, Paul Goyette wrote:
> }
> } > Module Name:src
> } > Committed By: christos
> } > Date: Thu Dec 13 19:31:25 UTC 2012
> } >
> } > Modified Files:
> } > src/usr.sbin/envstat: envstat.c
> }
> } > Log Messag
On Mar 31, 12:00am, Paul Goyette wrote:
}
} > Module Name:src
} > Committed By: christos
} > Date: Thu Dec 13 19:31:25 UTC 2012
} >
} > Modified Files:
} > src/usr.sbin/envstat: envstat.c
}
} > Log Message:
} > PR/47316: Henning Petersen: Memory leak in envstat with config
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:53:24AM -0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> While we're making sure to free() things, should we not also defend
> against memory leaks in the case where an option is used more than once?
While we are here, I wonder why sysmon(9) does not follow the common
guidelines w.r.t. for
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Thu Dec 13 19:31:25 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/usr.sbin/envstat: envstat.c
Log Message:
PR/47316: Henning Petersen: Memory leak in envstat with config file.
While we're making sure to free() things, should we not also def
