Re: gets in the kernel

[Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost>]

Le 07/06/2016 à 18:04, Christos Zoulas a écrit :
> On Jun 7,  3:20pm, dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost (David Holland) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: gets in the kernel
>
> | On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:36:54PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> |  > >I noticed that gets_s (a bounded version of gets) was added in the kernel.
> |  > >While this iis nice, it conflicts with the c-11 "Annex K" which has a
> |  > >different prototype (takes rsize_t instead of size_t). Perhaps we should
> |  > >rename this to kgets() or getl() now before it causes problems.
> |  >
> |  > This is not in the kernel, this is in the bootloader. So you can
> |  > forget kgets.  I don't think we need to rename it; it remains close
> |  > to what some people may be used to seeing, and does differ that
> |  > much.
> |
> | How about not giving people the false impression it's part of Annex K?

libsa is just made of many libc-like functions. getl and bounded_gets are not
close to anything in userland. gets_s is, even though it is in annex K.

> |
> |  > gets is not gets either, and so far nobody has complained about it.
>
> Yes, that was my point. I also wanted to remove gets() in SA completely.

Yes, we need to get rid of gets.

> | Er, it was when I looked at it... or close enough
>
> It has tty display handling...

And it is void.