X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=r0tJ/liOXd8zr0DujGSMcG6wQTxMm2YeAeGWHNyC1cf 664iQTZqn0lEwHrDUq+DuMkiPO+TQ5xxhMOdiwPPPpjun6R+OnPykUgiUCjb63xP 3dRecGwQTU21l+W262apyXQDKbpE2yIvHf19Hffcz2Xdo8R8JbNBLWT1892CoWD4 = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=Bs0SS7noA3Bapm3bq8MmKT4Pplg=; b=VA2fuMdZaC9pNyqug eU4DGjsWa/GbrSd1/QRR9dips7F3Zdc+Qc4zEwleeBiBNJQQur6i9od4sSEaZ4V2 fg9QDujcLJJnmR6TmYqpk/q2lOsedYARZU88STUHhtiMpCKdLXIES/SBufXNIxBx i3Y+8ufdmxvpeNZKTP5Bz9lZ68= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAPmt91JV0kxB/2dsb2JhbAANTMBHgxWBHIMZAQEBBDhAEQsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQGvEqElF48EFoQiAQOsO4E+ X-IPAS-Result: ApMBAPmt91JV0kxB/2dsb2JhbAANTMBHgxWBHIMZAQEBBDhAEQsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMIAQGvEqElF48EFoQiAQOsO4E+ Message-ID: <52F7AEC5.5090205@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:37:25 +0000 From: David Stacey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: get rid of getpwent? (Was: cygwin-1.7.28 getpwent header declaration changes ?) References: <52F339CA DOT 5070305 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206090117 DOT GD2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F361C5 DOT 3000807 AT gmail DOT com> <20140206141321 DOT GI2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F40208 DOT 5030901 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140207094917 DOT GN2821 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <52F4E540 DOT 2010606 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <52F51D19 DOT 6080807 AT etr-usa DOT com> <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903 AT etr-usa DOT com> In-Reply-To: <31347914-BB4F-4039-984B-731B6C72F903@etr-usa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes On 09/02/2014 15:45, Warren Young wrote: > Results: > > /bin/cppcheck.exe This intrigued me. cppcheck is a static analyser, so what's it doing with getpwent()? I had a nosy in the source code, and it appears that cppcheck has a rule checking for POSIX calls that are not re-entrant. If a call to getpwent() is found in your source code, cppcheck will recommend that you replace this with getpwent_r(). As far as I can tell, cppcheck doesn't actually call getpwent() at all; this is a false positive turned up by strings(1). Dave. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple