51 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
51 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
/*
|
|
* $Id$
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
The following items are currently outstanding bugs or design issues that
|
|
require attention in the near future. This file differs from TODO in that it
|
|
shows current issues, not future design goals. Before reporting problems
|
|
with harbour be sure to check here and in TODO.
|
|
|
|
Developers, take the following template and add to the list below, be as
|
|
verbose as possible in the description.
|
|
|
|
-- cut here ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Platform...........:
|
|
Noted as of release:
|
|
Noted by...........:
|
|
Severity...........:
|
|
Bug/Wish/TODO/etc..:
|
|
Description........:
|
|
|
|
-- cut here ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Current known problems and wishes:
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Platform...........: GNU/Linux with "later" GCC/GLIBC combinations.
|
|
Noted as of release: 0.37
|
|
Noted by...........: Dave Pearson <davep@davep.org>
|
|
Severity...........: Annoyance
|
|
Bug/Wish/TODO/etc..: Design issue.
|
|
Description........:
|
|
|
|
In GNU/Linux environments with "later" GCC/GLIBC combinations, when a user
|
|
finally links their harbour compiled application, they see the following
|
|
advisory message:
|
|
|
|
/usr/local/lib/harbour//librtl.a(fstemp.o): In function `hb_fsTempName':
|
|
/usr/local/src/harbour/source/rtl/linux/gcc/../../fstemp.c:73: the use of `tmpnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
|
|
|
|
As the advisory states, the problem is that use of tmpnam is considered
|
|
"dangerous" (presumably a security issue more than anything) and harbour's
|
|
fstemp uses tmpnam.
|
|
|
|
Note that the executable is still built and runs fine, the message is simply
|
|
an advisory from the linker. It is worth eradicating as it seems that some
|
|
people think that the executable has failed to build. It's also worth
|
|
eradicating because the warning is probably there for a good reason.
|