Re: "dangerous" warning question

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Sunday 15 July 2007, Brian Dessent wrote:
> And I was wrong about how the glibc warning works.  Since it's
> implemented as a link-time thing you should only get the warning if
> there is a call to mktemp in the final link, meaning that if all callers
> to choose_temp_base are cleaned up it shouldn't matter that there is
> still a call to mktemp in libiberty.a as that's dead code.

i'd say make sure you check out the code first and how it's used before 
spending time on fixing something that merely makes a warning go away.  if 
you look at the mktemp() warning from binutils/bucomm.c, you'll see that it 
is pointless to fix the warning in that file considering the usage model.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.