Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Replace ntohl() with g_ntohl() -> automated check?
From: LEGO <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:42:09 +0000
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 <[email protected]> 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                                           <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev


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