Deprecate setjmp/longjmp? [was Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?]
aph at redhat.com
Tue Apr 29 09:50:04 UTC 2014
On 04/28/2014 03:49 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 09:58 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:57:27AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2014-04-27 at 23:02 +0100, Andrew Price wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/14 15:13, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>>> We probably should make setjmp()-freeness a requirement for
>>>>> all code included in Fedora.
>>>> Would it be worth the effort, and how feasible is it anyway?
>>> I don't think it'd be worth the effort, and I think the burden of
>>> computing feasibility should rest with those who think it _is_ worth the
>> Well, we could consider banning it from new packages and just let attrition
>> take care of the rest.
> We could. I still wouldn't consider that a productive use of time.
> It's a rare API that can't be misused, I'd much prefer if we approached
> code quality by _actually reading the code_ rather than deciding with
> grep what we will and won't accept.
> I know that's a radical idea, that as packagers we ought actually to
> know the language of the code being packaged, but I think it has merit.
Indeed. setjmp has its uses; they're not very common, but it's not
unreasonable for an upstream programmer to use setjmp.
More information about the devel