On 08/03/2017 09:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:33:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 08/03/2017 08:24 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote: >>>>>> Well, there's not *that* many qsort calls. My quick grep shows 94 and >>>>>> its a very mechanical change. Then a poison in system.h to ensure raw >>>>>> calls to qsort don't return. >>> >>> Note that poisoning qsort outlaws vec::qsort too; it would need to be mass- >>> renamed as well (to vec::sort, presumably). It seems there are 83 or more >>> calls to vec::qsort. >> Ugh :( That's an unfortunate implementation of poisoning :( Consider a >> patch to rename those too pre-approved. > > Do we really need to rename and poison anything? qsort () in the source is > something that is most obvious to developers, so trying to force them to use > something different will just mean extra thing to learn. Thinking about this again, you're probably right. I failed to distinguish between this case and something like malloc. For qsort, if we're using the numbering hack, introduction of a new qsort call will result in a qsort call that is properly checked. In contrast we simply don't want folks calling malloc & friends directly under any circumstances.
Sorry for taking everyone down a bogus path here. Jeff
