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

[Kim Barrett]

> On Jul 4, 2022, at 3:18 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 10:59 PM Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2022, at 4:47 AM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I am preparing a patch to forbid C-heap allocation functions in hotspot as you proposed (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/9356). 
> > 
> > Interestingly, not all occurrences of forbidden functions are found everywhere. I found that if I compile on Ubuntu 20.04 with gcc 10.3., it does not complain about "realpath" even though I forbade it. If I build on Alpine, gcc 10.3.1, it finds occurrences of realpath.
> 
> In which build variants?  All?  Or only fastdebug?  If the latter, this might be another case of
> _FORTIFY_SOURCE rewriting the call first, dodging the warning.  This is mentioned in the
> comment describing the gcc implementation of FORBID_C_FUNCTION.
> 
> 
> No, it fails also on release to recognize realpath. Just to be sure I tested the most important other candidates (malloc, free, realloc, calloc, strdup) and those all work.

It works (fails with expected warning) for me.  gcc 11.2, in case that matters.

The warning mechanism is only supported for gcc 10+.