This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Holger Hans Peter Freyther holger at freyther.deOn Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Dear Jan, Peter, > >Because you seem to be working with this part of the code now and you > >might as well do a thorough job if you're spending time on it. > > I am not going to sprinkle osmocore with defines or otherwise make > talloc pluggable/replaceable by some other set of allocation > functions. I came to fix the problem I have an interest in, and that > is making osmocore support a system talloc in lieu or in addition to > a bundled talloc (-> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries), > exercising standard diliegence, which includes that previously > supported cases continue to function to the best of observation. Nobody is arguing about that. We should not even have a bundled copy of talloc.c. The reason we have one is historic (IIRC there were certainly no -dev/devel packages in any distribution back then and I am not sure if talloc.c even existed outside the samba code). I do appreciate your work to help us move to using the system version of libtalloc. So let's all calm down. > >> >> >Is this hunk needed? > >> >> Yes, because system talloc has a > >> >> #define talloc_free(ctx) _talloc_free(ctx, __location__) > >> >> and otherwise, one gets "implicit definition of talloc_free" and okay, I see the compiler warning now and will fix it. cheers holger