On (27/08/14 16:47), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:48:14AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 14:30 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:19:54PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> > > >We decided to use $(NULL) at the end of lists in Makefile.am. So you
will not
> > > >change two lines with adding new library next time.
> > > >see 1746e8b8399da2a7a8da4aace186f66055ccfec1
> > > >
> > > >LS
> > >
> > > Ok. I added it where I modified the end of the lists.
> > >
> > > Michal
> > >
> >
> > Simo,
> >
> > I know you're normally against mass-converting anything in the code, but
> > I think this conversion actually makes sense. We converted the DEBUG
> > messages only recently with Nikolai's patches and strerror/sss_strerror
> > is pretty much only used around DEBUG messages, so the context is
> > already 'tainted'..
> >
> > If you're OK with this mass-conversion, I'd like to push this patch to
> > master and keep using sss_strerror only from now on.
>
> You described my preferences quite well :)
>
> My question is, given it seem we have to use sss_strerror() everywhere
> why don't we simply ban the use of strerror() by redefining it to
> sss_strerror() ?
> If that would be too confusing I would like at least this macro be added
> to the header file:
>
> #idef strerror
> #undef strerror
> #endif
> #define strerror(err) __ERROR__USE__SSS_STRERROR_INSTEAD__;
>
> Simo.
Simply because I don't like code obfuscation :-) If the code says it's
calling strerror I'd like it to call strerror..
But I don't feel too strongly about this issue, as long as the code
prefers sss_strerror, I'm fine.
and you may forget to include such header file and you will use real function
from glibc.
LS