When trying to track down a MTYPE_TMP memory leak
it's harder to search for it when you happen to
have some usage of ttable_dump. Let's just give
it it's own memory type so that we can avoid
confusion in the future.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
The following table is not compliant with caml format when displayed in
json:
> ttable_add_row(
> tt,
> "Vertex|Type|Metric|Next-Hop|Interface|Parent");
>
> ttable_json(tt, "ssdsss");
output observed:
> [..]
> {
> "Vertex":"r1",
> "Type":"",
> "Metric":0,
> "Next-Hop":"",
> "Interface":"",
> "Parent":""
> }
output expected:
> [..]
> {
> "vertex":"r1",
> "type":"",
> "metric":0,
> "nextHop":"",
> "interface":"",
> "parent":""
> }
Override the ttable_json() function with a new function which has an
extra paramter: this parameter will redefine the initial row value for
json:
> ttable_json_with_json_text(tt,
> "vertex|type|metric|nextHop|interface|parent");
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
Add a function that returns a JSON-C structure containing a representation
of a termtable. This is intended to be a quick way to implement JSON
output to CLI commands.
Signed-off-by: Eric Kinzie <ekinzie@labn.net>
While this wasn't a problematic use of a format string, make it a
literal constant so the compiler is happy.
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org>
Back when I put this together in 2015, ISO C11 was still reasonably new
and we couldn't require it just yet. Without ISO C11, there is no
"good" way (only bad hacks) to require a semicolon after a macro that
ends with a function definition. And if you added one anyway, you'd get
"spurious semicolon" warnings on some compilers...
With C11, `_Static_assert()` at the end of a macro will make it so that
the semicolon is properly required, consumed, and not warned about.
Consistently requiring semicolons after "file-level" macros matches
Linux kernel coding style and helps some editors against mis-syntax'ing
these macros.
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
We need to be calling snprintfrr() instead of snprintf() in places that
wrap snprintf in some user-exposed way; otherwise the extensions won't
be available for those functions.
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
Specifically, gcc 4.2.1 on OpenBSD 6.0 warns about these; they're bogus
(gcc 4.2, being rather old, isn't quite as "intelligent" as newer
versions; the newer ones apply more logic and less warnings.)
Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equinox@opensourcerouting.org>
