This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: "dangerous" warning question
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: 27 Aug 2007 11:22:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: "dangerous" warning question
- References: <b609cb3b0707141944w199990dci77590272de78663c@mail.gmail.com> <46999950.7EC77946@dessent.net> <b609cb3b0707142110x1dcf3850yd68ef3e8689fc305@mail.gmail.com> <4699BB0B.509E9F8C@dessent.net> <b609cb3b0708262035s314dd10dy18cb04b5fac54fce@mail.gmail.com>
NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/15/07, Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote:
> > NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > And in fact the above already exists in libiberty as make_temp_file, so
> > it looks like the best short term solution would be to replace users of
> > choose_temp_base with that. (Although there is also make_tempname in
> > bucomm.c that might be usable but this has the strange logic that if the
> > target doesn't have mkstemp it falls back to mktemp instead of using the
> > mkstemps replacement that's in libiberty...)
>
>
> Would this patch be acceptable?
Since that patch would not work correctly, I don't think it would be
acceptable. choose_temp_base and make_temp_file do not do the same
thing.
Ian