On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 12:52:33PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > Le 07/06/2016 ? 18:04, Christos Zoulas a ?crit : > >On Jun 7, 3:20pm, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote: > >-- Subject: Re: gets in the kernel > > > >| On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:36:54PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote: > >| > >I noticed that gets_s (a bounded version of gets) was added in the > >kernel. > >| > >While this iis nice, it conflicts with the c-11 "Annex K" which has a > >| > >different prototype (takes rsize_t instead of size_t). Perhaps we > >should > >| > >rename this to kgets() or getl() now before it causes problems. > >| > > >| > This is not in the kernel, this is in the bootloader. So you can > >| > forget kgets. I don't think we need to rename it; it remains close > >| > to what some people may be used to seeing, and does differ that > >| > much. > >| > >| How about not giving people the false impression it's part of Annex K? > > libsa is just made of many libc-like functions. getl and > bounded_gets are not close to anything in userland. gets_s is, even > though it is in annex K.
It's more important not to let anyone take away the false impression that we're supporting annex K. Otherwise that could be a significant impediment to getting it removed. Anyway I'm not sure why you're so strenuously objecting to changing the name; it's like you think we're criticizing you or something rather than just polishing... :-/ I'm going to change it to gets2() unless anyone else has better ideas soon. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
