Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:15:32 +0100 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Cy Schubert <cy@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r451623 - in head/net/tcpview: . files Message-ID: <FF103639-6483-416C-8936-304F727BCB3F@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201710101305.v9AD5k9x056952@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201710101305.v9AD5k9x056952@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 Oct 2017, at 14:05, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> wrote: >=20 >>>> gets(3) called only once in this port; why not simply patch that >>>> single call properly instead of bringing in a "poor man's" macro? >>>=20 >>> As an example. To open discussion of possibilities. >>=20 >> I don't think that having this (even in some extra-guarded form) is >> good *general* solution. Macros are fragile and things can go south >> when the argument is more just a simple pointer. >=20 > Which is the limitation of this. As I said, it was not perfict. This version, with no guards, looks quite dangerous. It=E2=80=99s = difficult to see from the context, but if str is a char*, then this will = always simply set the first byte to null, without reading anything. The = compilation will succeed, yet the code will behave in an unexpected way. = =20 David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FF103639-6483-416C-8936-304F727BCB3F>