Re: nagios vs w/uptime

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 <grembo_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >> On 10 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel_at_xcllnt.net> wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >> [Moving to current_at_]
> > > >> 
> > > >>> On Feb 10, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Peter Wemm <peter_at_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