This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
What about mkstemp vs. mktemp in binutils?
- From: Christian Jönsson <c dot christian dot joensson at telia dot com>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:35:24 +0100
- Subject: What about mkstemp vs. mktemp in binutils?
I just came to think for a moment about using mkstemp vs. mktemp in
the binutils sources. Now, when configuring libiberty on my
linux-sparc libc6-2.2.5 based system I get no mkstemp.
checking for mkstemps... no
When compiling binutils I get (several similar) complaints like this:
gcc-3.0 -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -g -o .libs/size size.o bucomm.o version.o filemode.o ../bfd/.libs/libbfd.so ../libiberty/libiberty.a -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/binutils-cvs/lib
bucomm.o: In function `make_tempname':
/home/chj/src/objdir/binutils/../../binutils/bucomm.c:236: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
Is this something to worry about?
Cheers,
/ChJ