On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 17:00 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
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,
>> > I think this conversion actually makes sense. We converted the DEBUG
>> > messages only recently with Nikolai's patches and
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> #define strerror(err) __ERROR__USE__SSS_STRERROR_INSTEAD__;
>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
Should be in a header file that is included everywhere.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York