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

[LEGO <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>]

what about #defining them so they trigger an error?

On 11/7/06, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Checked in.
> >
> > Thanx,
> > Jaap
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Albert Chin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Patch attached to convert usage of ntohl() -> g_ntohl(). On HP-UX,
> >> ntohl() isn't available unless you -D_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED but there
> >> are other uses of g_ntohl().
> >>
> >> --
> >> albert chin (china@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> >>
> Hi List!
>
> It seems that we get more and more "keywords" known to be better not
> used in our code (or at least not in the dissector part).
>
> I think for example of:
> - printf
> - perror
> - sprintf
> - ntohl
> - ... and there might be a lot more!
>
> Would it be possible to have some simple static code analysis tools to
> prevent such calls?
>
> Of course, it shouldn't trigger on these keywords inside of strings and
> comments, so a simple text search might not be the way to go.
>
> Any thoughts for a simple but solid solution, which could be integrated
> into the buildbot?
>
> Regards, ULFL
> _______________________________________________
> 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