C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members?          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Krzysztof ¯elechowski Guest Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:40 am    Post subject: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? As you perhaps already know, Microsoft Visual C++ has taken the liberty of deprecating standard functions and methods on security grounds. I do not want to discuss whether it is right or wrong; however, I do have a following problem: I want to provide mybuf::xsgetn. However, xsgetn(char_type[], streamsize) is deprecated to _Xsgetn_s(char_type[], size_t, streamsize). It would not be a problem if Microsoft did not allow me to call xsgetn since I agree it bears the risk a buffer overflow; but it gives a warning when I implement it as a private method! I have the following choices now: 1. Do not implement xsgetn at all, which is a performance hit; 2. Implement _Xsgetn_s, which I can surely do, but I am not sure I am allowed to beause the identifier _Xsgetn_s is reserved. What do you think? Chris --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Guest Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? "Krzysztof ¯elechowski" wrote: Quote: I want to provide mybuf::xsgetn. However, xsgetn(char_type[], streamsize) is deprecated to _Xsgetn_s(char_type[], size_t, streamsize). It would not be a problem if Microsoft did not allow me to call xsgetn since I agree it bears the risk a buffer overflow; but it gives a warning when I implement it as a private method! I have the following choices now: 1. Do not implement xsgetn at all, which is a performance hit; 2. Implement _Xsgetn_s, which I can surely do, but I am not sure I am allowed to beause the identifier _Xsgetn_s is reserved. I don't get it? What is wrong with option 3. Turn off these warnings, and implement xsgetn. As far as I'm concerned, these warnings do not affect standard compliance (legal code compiles and works either way), but the only standard-compliant way to avoid them is to turn them off. Compiler settings are outside the scope of the standard. BTW, do you get the warning when your xsgetn call another streambuf's xsgetn? Or did I misunderstand your problem? Michiel. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Christopher Yeleighton Guest Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? <Michiel.Salters (AT) tomtom (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1153401249.881102.79450 (AT) 75g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com... Quote: "Krzysztof ¯elechowski" wrote: I want to provide mybuf::xsgetn. However, xsgetn(char_type[], streamsize) is deprecated to _Xsgetn_s(char_type[], size_t, streamsize). It would not be a problem if Microsoft did not allow me to call xsgetn since I agree it bears the risk a buffer overflow; but it gives a warning when I implement it as a private method! I have the following choices now: 1. Do not implement xsgetn at all, which is a performance hit; 2. Implement _Xsgetn_s, which I can surely do, but I am not sure I am allowed to beause the identifier _Xsgetn_s is reserved. I don't get it? What is wrong with option 3. Turn off these warnings, and implement xsgetn. If I turn them off, I may overlook a potential problem. I find this warning useful in general. Quote: As far as I'm concerned, these warnings do not affect standard compliance (legal code compiles and works either way), but the only standard-compliant way to avoid them is to turn them off. Compiler settings are outside the scope of the standard. BTW, do you get the warning when your xsgetn call another streambuf's xsgetn? Or did I misunderstand your problem? I get the warning when I declare the method xsgetn. It is that hard. Chris --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Victor Bazarov Guest Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:10 am    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? "Krzysztof ¯elechowski" wrote: Quote: As you perhaps already know, Microsoft Visual C++ has taken the liberty of deprecating standard functions and methods on security grounds. I do not want to discuss whether it is right or wrong; however, I do have a following problem: I want to provide mybuf::xsgetn. However, xsgetn(char_type[], streamsize) is deprecated to _Xsgetn_s(char_type[], size_t, streamsize). It would not be a problem if Microsoft did not allow me to call xsgetn since I agree it bears the risk a buffer overflow; but it gives a warning when I implement it as a private method! Whas is the *problem* here? A warning? Take it up with Microsoft of simply disable it in your program. Or use a different compiler. Quote: I have the following choices now: 1. Do not implement xsgetn at all, which is a performance hit; 2. Implement _Xsgetn_s, which I can surely do, but I am not sure I am allowed to beause the identifier _Xsgetn_s is reserved. What do you think? I don't think anything. I couldn't care less. I have always used and will continue using standard functions whether or not MS decides to warn me about their potential danger. I keep driving a car although it is known to sometimes cause injuries if driven into a wall at more than 5 mph without wearing or working restraints, and so do millions of other folks. Nobody tries to deprecate cars [yet]. MS is trying to look better and cover its ass because the world notices all the vulnerabilities in their products. They ought to educate their own developers better, not try to prohibit the use of the "dangerous" elements from the Standard Library. Could it be that the warnings were intended for the internal use and somehow leaked out? I would not be surprised. V -- Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Bo Persson Guest Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? ""Victor Bazarov"" <v.Abazarov (AT) comAcast (DOT) net> skrev i meddelandet news:e9nths$ac$1 (AT) news (DOT) datemas.de... Quote: Could it be that the warnings were intended for the internal use and somehow leaked out? I would not be surprised. It *was* intended for their internal use, and was found to be so good that they couldn't even imagine anyone not wanting it on by default. Luckily, there is a setting to revert to Standard C++. The OP should just check the manual for the correct config macro. Bo Persson --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Christopher Conrade Zsele Guest Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? "Bo Persson" <bop (AT) gmb (DOT) dk> wrote: Quote: ""Victor Bazarov"" <v.Abazarov (AT) comAcast (DOT) net> skrev i meddelandet news:e9nths$ac$1 (AT) news (DOT) datemas.de... Could it be that the warnings were intended for the internal use and somehow leaked out? I would not be surprised. It *was* intended for their internal use, and was found to be so good that they couldn't even imagine anyone not wanting it on by default. Luckily, there is a setting to revert to Standard C++. The OP should just check the manual for the correct config macro. Bo Persson If I sought such an advice, I would have posted the question to comp.lang.c++.moderated or, even more appropriate, paid $$$$ for Microsoft Technical Support. (Although I must admit I find these warnings useful myself). Please make a comment about virtual overridable member functions with reserved names. Is it all right to override them in user code? I provided the context in order to make things clearer, not to divert your attention to Microsoft, let its name sink into perpetual oblivion. Chris --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Bo Persson Guest Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members? "Christopher Conrade Zseleghovski" <kkz (AT) duch (DOT) mimuw.edu.pl> skrev i meddelandet news:e9u3v7$ri6$1 (AT) achot (DOT) icm.edu.pl... Quote: "Bo Persson" <bop (AT) gmb (DOT) dk> wrote: ""Victor Bazarov"" <v.Abazarov (AT) comAcast (DOT) net> skrev i meddelandet news:e9nths$ac$1 (AT) news (DOT) datemas.de... Could it be that the warnings were intended for the internal use and somehow leaked out? I would not be surprised. It *was* intended for their internal use, and was found to be so good that they couldn't even imagine anyone not wanting it on by default. Luckily, there is a setting to revert to Standard C++. The OP should just check the manual for the correct config macro. Bo Persson If I sought such an advice, I would have posted the question to comp.lang.c++.moderated or, even more appropriate, paid $$$$ for Microsoft Technical Support. (Although I must admit I find these warnings useful myself). My comments were directed to Victor, who hadn't seen MS' apologies in other fora. They just hadn't considered the possiblity that people may want to write strictly compliant code, and not have the warnings enabled by default. Quote: Please make a comment about virtual overridable member functions with reserved names. Is it all right to override them in user code? I wouldn't know. The standard just reserves some names for the implementation, it doesn't say how thses names are going to be used. So your options seems to be to either use the interface defined by the standard (and deal with the warnings), or use the implementation specific interface and rely on the implementation's documentation. Virtual functions are obviously designed to be overridden, so that cannot be a problem in itself. Bo Persson --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.