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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 20, 2018, 09:32 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa7qmckwi.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180720010808.GC2179@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> Is it a downside that it is cumbersome to override?  This is not a
>> rhetorical question.  I am not convinced there will not be a legit
>> circumstance that calling strcpy (or whatever we are going to ban)
>> is the best solution and it is safe.  By "best", what I mean is "you
>> could instead use memcpy/strncpy/whatever" can legitimately be
>> argued with "but still using memcpy/strncpy/whatever is inferior
>> than using strcpy in this case for such and such reasons".
>
> In my opinion, no, this is not a problem.
>
> My plan is to only add functions which are truly worthless.

OK.

> Contrast this with memcpy(). This is on Microsoft's SDL banned list[1],
> but I think it's silly for it to be. I would never add it to this list.

A tangent, but is that because they want you to use memmove() instead so that you do not have to worry about overlapping copies, perhaps?