"dangerous" warning question
Ian Lance Taylor
iant@google.com
Mon Aug 27 19:28:00 GMT 2007
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Mon Aug 27 19:28:00 GMT 2007
- Previous message (by thread): "dangerous" warning question
- Next message (by thread): [RFC][PATCH][EXPERIMENTAL] enable MIPS gnu hash (was: Re: use of gnu hash for MIPS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes: > On 7/15/07, Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote: > > NightStrike wrote: > > > > And in fact the above already exists in libiberty as make_temp_file, so > > it looks like the best short term solution would be to replace users of > > choose_temp_base with that. (Although there is also make_tempname in > > bucomm.c that might be usable but this has the strange logic that if the > > target doesn't have mkstemp it falls back to mktemp instead of using the > > mkstemps replacement that's in libiberty...) > > > Would this patch be acceptable? Since that patch would not work correctly, I don't think it would be acceptable. choose_temp_base and make_temp_file do not do the same thing. Ian
- Previous message (by thread): "dangerous" warning question
- Next message (by thread): [RFC][PATCH][EXPERIMENTAL] enable MIPS gnu hash (was: Re: use of gnu hash for MIPS)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list