From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Villemoes Subject: Re: [PATCH 60/68] prefer memcpy to strcpy Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:09:46 +0200 Organization: D03 Message-ID: <87fv1zf29x.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk> References: <20150924210225.GA23624@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150924210818.GE30946@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jeff King To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 28 09:15:17 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgSeX-0004L5-VT for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:15:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755005AbbI1HPI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:15:08 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43650 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753166AbbI1HPH (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:15:07 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgSeO-00046o-0d for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:15:04 +0200 Received: from 130.225.20.51 ([130.225.20.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:15:03 +0200 Received: from rv by 130.225.20.51 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:15:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.225.20.51 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mMBbZ57ZIxhsGu1vPEV/yQWYAnI= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Sep 24 2015, Jeff King wrote: > This also eliminates calls to strcpy, which make auditing > the code base harder. Maybe may English parser is broken, but this doesn't immediately sound like what you meant to say. Also, in 29/68 you say "We drop calls to strcpy, which makes auditing the code base easier." Maybe it's all ok, since on second reading the first "make" probably refers to the plural "calls for strcpy", while in the second case "makes" refers to "[the dropping of] calls to strcpy". Rasmus