Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> This is a patch series to address the discussion in the thread at:
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180713204350.ga16...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
>
> Basically, the question was: can we declare strcpy banned and have a
> linter save us the trouble of finding it in review. The answer is yes,
> the compiler is good at that. ;)
>
> There are probably as many lists of banned functions as there are coding
> style documents. I don't agree with every entry in the ones I've seen.
> And in many cases coccinelle is a better choice, because the problem is
> not "this function is so bad your patch should not even make it to the
> list with it", but "don't do it like A; we prefer to do it like B
> instead". And coccinelle does the latter more flexibly and
> automatically.
>
> So I tried to pick some obvious and uncontroversial candidates here.
> gets() could be another one, but it's mostly banned already (it's out of
> the standard, and most libcs mark it with a deprecated attribute).
>
> Note that this needs to be applied on top of 022d2ac1f3 (blame: prefer
> xsnprintf to strcpy for colors, 2018-07-13) or it will complain loudly. :)
>
> [1/2]: introduce "banned function" list
> [2/2]: banned.h: mark strncpy as banned
Hmph, there is no use of any banned function in hex.c, but when
this topic is merged to 'pu', I seem to get this:
$ make DEVELOPER=1 hex.o
GIT_VERSION = 2.18.0.758.g18f90b35b8
CC hex.o
In file included from git-compat-util.h:1250:0,
from cache.h:4,
from hex.c:1:
banned.h:14:0: error: "strncpy" redefined [-Werror]
#define strncpy(x,y,n) BANNED(strncpy)
In file included from /usr/include/string.h:630:0,
from git-compat-util.h:165,
from cache.h:4,
from hex.c:1:
/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string2.h:84:0: note: this is the location
of the previous definition
# define strncpy(dest, src, n) __builtin_strncpy (dest, src, n)
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Makefile:2279: recipe for target 'hex.o' failed
make: *** [hex.o] Error 1
