LDB hidden memory leaks

Kamen Mazdrashki kamenim at gmail.com
Sun Jul 4 16:27:41 MDT 2010

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 00:57, simo <idra at samba.org> wrote:

> Kamen, Approach number 1 is not a problem from an ABI point of view.
> Adding *new* symbols is a compatible change, only changing or removing
> existing symbols is an issue.

True :)


The only advice I'd give is to not use _s as that in the ldap library
> world usually demotes synchronous vs asynchronous calls.

Well, '_s' suffix was adopted as a 'safe' version for existing functions.
Microsoft compiler gives a warning every time '_s' suffixed function is not
and given the fact that there are a lot of windows developers out there
are waiting to become Linux developers (just like me), it would be instantly
for them what this suffix means.
I am joking :)

> Alternatives I can see are:
> ldm_msg_canonicalize_2
> ldb_msg_canonicalize_ex
> ldb_msg_canonicalize_p (as in parent)
> In this list I would prefer ldb_msg_canonicalize_ex, so i will go with it
(it makes you feel like we  are doing something more, despite we are
doing the same thing in a different way) :)


More information about the samba-technical mailing list