Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:53:14 -0400 From: James Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mktemp() vs. mkstemp() Message-ID: <200005142053.QAA29650@rac10.wam.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 May 2000 13:09:44 MDT." <200005141909.e4EJ9iN09199@orthanc.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200005141909.e4EJ9iN09199@orthanc.ab.ca>, Lyndon Nerenberg writes: > Is it that much work to add > > if ((stream=fdopen(fd, mode)) == NULL) > err(...); > > after a mkstemp call? If you use it that much you can define a function > in your application. There's no need to add a non-portable routine > to libc for this. No, but by that argument, we shouldn't have getusershell() either. Besides, this port needs it twice. Wouldn't sticking it in libc once instead of in a patch in the ports collection twice save CVS space? Also, a lot of ports complain about this. For instance, in LyX, we see lyx_cb.o: In function `AutoSave(void)': lyx_cb.o(.text+0x73ee): warning: tmpnam() possibly used unsafely; consider using mkstemp() Is there time when it is inapprpriate to "fix" the behaviour of the port? Thanks, Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005142053.QAA29650>