Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Replace ntohl() with g_ntohl() -> automated check?

[LEGO <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm exploring Richard's proposal of using (nm -u) to write a report of
what "forbiden" functions are baing used by which objects, if the
report (a dependency of libwireshark.so ?) has more than 0 lines, the
build will fail and output the contents of the report.

Which functions should we add to the forbidden-function list?

Luis

On 11/9/06, Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:57:59PM +0000, LEGO wrote:
> > what about #defining them so they trigger an error?
>
> #define ntohl error() won't work, a g_ntohl would match as well. But how
> about creating our own ntohl function with a conflicting prototype?
> ok, forget it, in that case we cannot include inet.h :-(
>
>  Ciao
>       Joerg
> --
> Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
> works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev


--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan