Re: [PATCH 1/2] introduce "banned function" list

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 20, 2018, 00:55 UTC
Message-ID: <20180720005545.GB2179@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTbvKZ6Ui_ib2g2Xqbv8zFwJp9idocbWaZLxj0Lpe+YBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:59:47PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > The one I brainstormed (but forgot to mention) is that it might be
> > possible for a platform to have strcpy as a macro already? In which case
> > we'd need to #undef it or risk a compilation error (even if the macro
> > isn't actually used).
> 
> I have some recollection (perhaps long outdated or just wrong) of
> Microsoft headers spewing deprecation warnings about "unsafe"
> functions. I don't know whether they did that by covering functions
> with macros or by decorating the function with a deprecation attribute
> or by some other mechanism, but such concern seems well-founded.
> #undef'ing them might indeed be a very good preventative tactic.

Yeah, these functions are definitely on their "SDL banned list". I don't know how they implement that. At that level, I'd really expect it to be done with a deprecated attribute next to the declaration (I also considered trying to add deprecation attributes, too, but I think it's hard to do without re-declaring the function, and anyway it's "just" a warning).

-Peff