On 2014-09-18 15:24, Emil Renner Berthing wrote: > --- > src/shared/missing.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/shared/missing.h b/src/shared/missing.h > index b441149..8389c28 100644 > --- a/src/shared/missing.h > +++ b/src/shared/missing.h > @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ static inline int name_to_handle_at(int fd, const char > *name, struct file_handle > # ifdef HAVE___SECURE_GETENV > # define secure_getenv __secure_getenv > # else > -# error "neither secure_getenv nor __secure_getenv are available" > +# define secure_getenv getenv
I think it would be way better (and easy) to reimplement original secure_getenv() rather than falling back to function with different semantics. secure_ is there for a reason. Cheers, -- Karol Lewandowski, Samsung R&D Institute Poland _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
