This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
- From: David Stacey <drstacey at tiscali dot co dot uk>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:37:25 +0000
- Subject: Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52F339CA dot 5070305 at gmail dot com> <20140206090117 dot GD2821 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <52F361C5 dot 3000807 at gmail dot com> <20140206141321 dot GI2821 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <52F40208 dot 5030901 at etr-usa dot com> <20140207094917 dot GN2821 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <52F4E540 dot 2010606 at tiscali dot co dot uk> <52F51D19 dot 6080807 at etr-usa dot com> <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 at etr-usa dot com>
On 09/02/2014 15:45, Warren Young wrote:
Results:
/bin/cppcheck.exe
This intrigued me. cppcheck is a static analyser, so what's it doing
with getpwent()? I had a nosy in the source code, and it appears that
cppcheck has a rule checking for POSIX calls that are not re-entrant. If
a call to getpwent() is found in your source code, cppcheck will
recommend that you replace this with getpwent_r().
As far as I can tell, cppcheck doesn't actually call getpwent() at all;
this is a false positive turned up by strings(1).
Dave.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple