GCC Poison

Somewhat off-topic, but I can&#x27;t use my back-button to get off this page.<p>Can we please, please stop breaking shit that worked just fine in &#x27;95?<p><a href="http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com&#x2F;</a>

I never liked those microsoft functions, and disable all the warnings in each new project. What are you supposed to use instead of memcpy? It&#x27;s a bit of a rant but I find myself in agreement with this:<p><a href="http://unspecified.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/microsoft-bans-memcpy/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;unspecified.wordpress.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;05&#x2F;16&#x2F;microsoft-bans-m...</a>

This header would be much more useful if it suggested safe alternatives for each of the functions it poisions

While there is probably no meaningful use for gets() (which is missing from that list and certainly is not Win32 specific) and maybe sprintf() and even more maybe strcat(), what is exactly so insecure about things like memcpy() or alloca()?

I am actually happy that gcc doesn&#x27;t find it important to support a library that prevents its users from using functions that are clearly defined in the specification of the language it supports.

I’m currently doing a school project in C and we wrote a shell script to check every source file for these insecure functions. It displays a warning and suggest you a more secure alternative function.

this site is unusable on my phone.the sidebar dominates the screen.

It turns out there is a project - the safe C library - that implements strcpy_s and friends as an open source library (MIT license). so this header can be used with the Safe C library.<p><a href="https://sourceforge.net/projects/safeclib/" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sourceforge.net&#x2F;projects&#x2F;safeclib&#x2F;</a>

Good! I had never ignored that unsafe notices from visual studio console.