On Mar 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > On 3/17/2011 2:29 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> >> Dan, >> >> It looks ok, but you are using sprintf, and it really should be snprintf. >> On Windows you may need to: >> #define snprintf _snprintf >> > > Yup. I know we have to do that someday soon... > > >> --- >> We (myself included) all need to start being more careful about use of >> strcpy, strcat, sprintf, etc. >> The static analysis tools are all starting to just flag the use of them as >> an error, so we need to start >> getting rid of these calls from all our code eventually. Which may take some >> major time. :^( >> > > I copied the code from elsewhere in src/windows/native/... > just so I could do it like "everyone else"... > > >> Don't shoot the messenger. :^( >> > > No plans to shoot you. Would it be OK if I pushed this fix as is? > When I continue with 7020052 (the related bug), I'll come back to > this file and switch to snprintf()... along with the rest of the > fix... >
Ok. -kto > Dan > > >> -kto >> >> On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: >> >> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I have minor fixes to the Attach On Demand (AOD) Windows >>> specific code that I'd like to get into T&L snapshot for >>> OpenJDK7-B136 (next week): >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/7028668-webrev/0/ >>> >>> I'm adding more info to the default detail message for an >>> OpenProcess() failure. I'm also getting a process handle >>> in a different way when a Java process tries to attach to >>> itself. If the new technique fails, then we fall back to >>> the original OpenProcess() code. >>> >>> Thanks, in advance, for any comments. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
