Re: gwmem patches

ok.

This is probably because you dont define one of these statements ;)

#  if defined __USE_SVID || defined __USE_BSD || defined __USE_XOPEN_EXTENDED
#   define strdup(s) __strdup (s)
#  endif


This should be also fixed in the current cvs.

Vincent


Alexander Malysh a écrit :
> this patch is a really trivial one.
> 
> please try attached patch that should fix this warning.
> 
> btw. I don't have such warning ;)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> Am 06.04.2009 um 12:44 schrieb Vincent CHAVANIS:
> 
>>
>> Did this patch has been tested ?
>>
>>
>> In file included from ./gwlib/gwlib.h:83,
>>                 from gw/msg.h:69,
>>                 from gw/sms.h:89,
>>                 from gw/sms.c:65:
>> ./gwlib/gwmem.h:188:1: warning: "strdup" redefined
>> In file included from /usr/include/string.h:423,
>>                 from ./gwlib/gwlib.h:72,
>>                 from gw/msg.h:69,
>>                 from gw/sms.h:89,
>>                 from gw/sms.c:65:
>> /usr/include/bits/string2.h:1316:1: warning: this is the location of 
>> the previous definition
>>
>>
>> Vincent.
>>
>>
>> Alexander Malysh a écrit :
>>> Hi again,
>>> patch commited to cvs.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>> Am 06.04.2009 um 10:56 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Here it goes. gw_calloc + gw_strdup.
>>>> BR,
>>>> Nikos
>>>>
>>>>    ----- Original Message -----
>>>>    *From:* Alexander Malysh <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>    *To:* Andreas Fink <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>    *Cc:* Nikos Balkanas
>>>>    <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected]
>>>>    <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>    *Sent:* Monday, April 06, 2009 10:26 AM
>>>>    *Subject:* Re: gwmem patches
>>>>
>>>>    Hi Nikos,
>>>>
>>>>    we have at least one +1 so please repost your patch.
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>    Alex
>>>>
>>>>    Am 03.04.2009 um 17:37 schrieb Andreas Fink:
>>>>
>>>>>    I'm +1 on gw_calloc. There's a few times I would have used it in
>>>>>    the past so its nice to have it in gwlib.
>>>>>
>>>>>    I see very little optimisation of strdup except we do a strlen
>>>>>    twice (once explicit in the malloc line an done implicity in the
>>>>>    strcpy) but it is never bad to save a few microseconds.. (who
>>>>>    knows one might call this one a gazillion times...). so +1 for
>>>>>    that one too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    On 02.04.2009, at 23:21, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    thanks for your patch but:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1) thread.h patch was wrong. I fixed it in CVS.
>>>>>>    2) gw_strdup optimisation looks OK, please submit as extra patch
>>>>>>    3) gw_calloc, hmm... I don't really see any advantage of this
>>>>>>    one. because
>>>>>>    x = gw_malloc(count*size);
>>>>>>    memset(x, 0);
>>>>>>        do the same. why do we need this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>>>    Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Am 02.04.2009 um 19:09 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>>         An assortment of small patches to make check_memory_leaks 
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>    better:
>>>>>>>         1) Added support for gw_calloc, which is #undefed but not 
>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>    2) Replaced strcpy with memcpy in gw_strdup for better efficiency
>>>>>>>    3) Added function prototype in thread.h for mutex_make_measured
>>>>>>>    so that MUTEX_STATS compile correctly.
>>>>>>>         Please decide and vote.
>>>>>>>         BR,
>>>>>>>    Nikos<kannel.diff>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <kannel.diff>
>>
>> -- 
>> Telemaque - 06560 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS - (FR)
>> Service Technique/Reseau - NOC
>> Direction du Developpement xMS+
>> http://www.telemaque.fr/
>> [email protected]
>> Tel : +33 4 92 90 99 84 (fax 9142)
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Telemaque - 06560 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS - (FR)
Service Technique/Reseau - NOC
Direction du Developpement xMS+
http://www.telemaque.fr/
[email protected]
Tel : +33 4 92 90 99 84 (fax 9142)