From owner-cvs-all Thu Jan 30 16: 3:19 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C78537B401; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.2.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E1743F85; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:03:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h0V03Eod139822; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:03:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030131092613.A48425@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <200301301200.h0UC0Qfd081080@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030130.063524.24235010.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030131092613.A48425@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:03:13 -0500 To: Tim Robbins , "M. Warner Losh" From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio gets.c Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 9:26 AM +1100 1/31/03, Tim Robbins wrote: >On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 06:35:24AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> In message: <200301301200.h0UC0Qfd081080@repoman.freebsd.org> >> "Tim J. Robbins" writes: >> : tjr 2003/01/30 04:00:26 PST >> : >> : Modified files: >> : lib/libc/stdio gets.c >> : Log: >> : Remove runtime warning about gets(). >> >> Why? > >Because it's tacky, redundant (we already warn at compile time) >and not worth the space. NetBSD and BSD/OS removed it years ago. > >If you disagree and would like me to back this out, tell me. >I don't feel strongly enough about this to argue. When someone does a 'portupgrade -a', how many compile-time warnings do you think they actually read? If they're doing binary (package) upgrades, they don't even have the chance to see compile-time warnings. I'd say that the runtime warning is fine. I'm quite comfortable with it being tacky, as long as it does not get in the way of the program actually working. That's just my opinion though. I would prefer the warning return, but I'm not rabid about it. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message