Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:17:18 +0100
From: Martin Husemann <mar...@duskware.de>
Message-ID: <20171210111718.gb1...@mail.duskware.de>
| I very well understand your POV here, but it is important to fully
| understand the problem before changing random things
Let's not over react, the change was harmless, and the alternate reason
that Kamil gave in one of the messages ...
>> I think that reusing symbol names of well-known standard functions from
>> libc is at least misleading and shouldn't happen - so the process of
>> renaming such functions is improving the situation.
would have been fine, no-one would have complained about that - and none
of us would (today) use a function "uname" for anything other than the
system call (ps is just SO old).
After looking at the sources a bit, I would probably have picked euname()
as the revised function name, ps also has runame (which it uses to print
the "real" user name, and "svuname" which it uses to print the saved user
name - the "uname" function was used to print the effective user name
("user name" in these cases being what comes from converting a uid to
the associated string from /etc/passwd.)
But these things are just names, and as long as they don't cause problems,
and are not irrational, who cares?
None of this means that the sanitizers shouldn't be fixed, by someone
(I expecty not Kamil - just file a bug report with whoever maintains it
upstream.)
kre
