what about #defining them so they trigger an error? On 11/7/06, Ulf Lamping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaap Keuter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Checked in. > > > > Thanx, > > Jaap > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Albert Chin wrote: > > > > > >> Patch attached to convert usage of ntohl() -> g_ntohl(). On HP-UX, > >> ntohl() isn't available unless you -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED but there > >> are other uses of g_ntohl(). > >> > >> -- > >> albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >> > Hi List! > > It seems that we get more and more "keywords" known to be better not > used in our code (or at least not in the dissector part). > > I think for example of: > - printf > - perror > - sprintf > - ntohl > - ... and there might be a lot more! > > Would it be possible to have some simple static code analysis tools to > prevent such calls? > > Of course, it shouldn't trigger on these keywords inside of strings and > comments, so a simple text search might not be the way to go. > > Any thoughts for a simple but solid solution, which could be integrated > into the buildbot? > > Regards, ULFL > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev >
-- This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself. -- Marshall McLuhan _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
