From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Jun 12 12: 0:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B544B37B408 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5CJ0LZ35764; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200106121900.f5CJ0LZ35764@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Mike Barcroft Subject: Re: bin/28082: [patch] src/usr.bin/whois clean-up Reply-To: Mike Barcroft Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/28082; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mike Barcroft To: Dima Dorfman Cc: Subject: Re: bin/28082: [patch] src/usr.bin/whois clean-up Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:58:09 -0400 On 6/11/01 11:38 PM, Dima Dorfman at dima@unixfreak.org wrote: > mike@q9media.com writes: >> Description: >> >> The following patch has been sent to -audit. Reviewed by mikeh and gad. >> All problems brought up were resolved. >> >> >> 20010605 whois.patch >> >> o Silence warnings and set WARNS=2 >> o Fix two memory leaks >> o asprint -> strdup where appropriate >> o calloc/strcpy/strcat -> aprintf >> o Convert to ANSI C to avoid having to prototype main() > > I don't think this is a good reason to ANSIify something, especially > since gcc no longer complains about that. Would you not agree that prototyping main() is evil? :) Also, was the change to gcc also applied to -stable. Eventually this change will be MFC. I recall David saying something about it only being applied to the current verion of gcc, and future versions may not have it. I would hate to introduce something that could result in future breakage, as a result of a new gcc import. My goal was to take a more proactive step towards current style(9) conventions. Although style(9) recommends staying with current conventions unless you're changing 50% or more, I feel I'm justified in this change. Others in -audit also felt it was "the right thing to do". If you still feel ANSIify this is the wrong thing to do in this case, I'd be more than happy to convert the prototypes back to __P() and produce a new patch. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message