On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 12:32 PM Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> wrote: > In message <201909011612.x81gc5dw097...@repo.freebsd.org>, Ed Maste writes: > > Author: emaste > > Date: Sun Sep 1 16:12:05 2019 > > New Revision: 351659 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351659 > > > > Log: > > libc: remove gets > > ... > > Should we encourage the use of gets_s() in the man page or in other doc?
Hi Cy, Short version: no, we shouldn't. :-) Longer version: Annex K functions like gets_s have zero real adoption (Microsoft's APIs that inspired Annex K are not actually compatible with the version in the standards); broadly terrible APIs; and in this particular case and others, unnecessarily duplicate the functionality of existing long-standing standard C functions (e.g., fgets(3)). Also, it's been a *long* time since gets(3) was known to be extremely broken and rejected by -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE and friends; at least twenty years just going by the C99 standard. I don't think developers need an advisory about using alternatives to gets(3) at this point in time. Best, Conrad _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
