Should we rename os:: functions that are named like standard C- or Posix-functions?

[Kim Barrett]

> On Jul 4, 2022, at 3:55 AM, Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 3:18 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:One thing that I dislike is that this requires including globalDefinitions.hpp. Not every cpp or hpp file may include that. Also, since in theory, to have 100% coverage, every file and header should include globalDefinitions.hpp, we may want to move these macros into an own file to avoid blowing up the dependencies.
> 
> I thought about putting the forbiddings in a different file, but ultimately decided not.
> 
> 1. globalDefinitions.hpp ends up being included nearly everywhere anyway, almost certainly in places
> where these functions would be used.  It’s currently such a dumping ground for miscellaneous and
> often unrelated things that it ends up being hard to avoid.
> 
> 2. globalDefinitions.hpp is where we do whatever conditionalization is needed to #include a lot of
> the relevant “system” and C library headers and perform some additional massaging of them.
> These poisonings may involve parameter and return types from those headers.

One option is to put it in a separate file and use gcc's `-include` option to ensure it is included
everywhere.  But (2) is still an issue, so other refactoring of globalDefinitions.hpp would also
be needed.  (Not that such refactoring would be a bad thing, IMO.)