Some checks for return codes are missing.
Please add more error handling for functions like
"..._init" and "..._destroy".
Would the call "std::terminate()" be appropriate here?
Logged In: YES
Are you going to fix your source files?
How do you think about to reuse an other well-known class library for this purpose?
Logged In: YES
Please submit a patch for review. Thanks!
Patches will depend on consensus for the correct error handling approach.
Your bug report merely points to the entire source tree and says "you have errors everywhere, please fix them". It is not sufficient for us to determine where the problems exist. Your example points to an entire file. If you have particicular concerns, point them out more clearly please with a specific problem. If there are multiple alternative solutions you would like us to consider, then feel free to spell them out as part of the example.
As far as using another library, it is unlikely we would adopt the use of another library as a base requirement unless it was drastically needed. The library now does not require many other base libraries by design to reduce the overhead required by people making use of the opensnmp package. Though we would consider using any other library that provided us great benifit, the costs of doing so must be weighed carefully.
I have pointed out a few open issues in the source file "snmpMutexObj.C".
you pointed to an entire file and said it has problems. If you wish to submit specific bugs, please do so. But bugs that are generic and state "some checks for return codes are missing" does not help us find specific problem areas. You need to identify which return codes aren't being checked within the source code. Doing anything else will simply result in a bug which will likely not be fixed because there is no condition for when it is acceptable to close it and mark it as "fixed".
Would you like to grep for the indicated function names?