"dangerous" warning question

[Ian Lance Taylor]

NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/15/07, Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote:
> > NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > And in fact the above already exists in libiberty as make_temp_file, so
> > it looks like the best short term solution would be to replace users of
> > choose_temp_base with that.  (Although there is also make_tempname in
> > bucomm.c that might be usable but this has the strange logic that if the
> > target doesn't have mkstemp it falls back to mktemp instead of using the
> > mkstemps replacement that's in libiberty...)
> 
> 
> Would this patch be acceptable?

Since that patch would not work correctly, I don't think it would be
acceptable.  choose_temp_base and make_temp_file do not do the same
thing.

Ian