Jim,
Stopping warnings is not the issue. There are of course lots of ways to stop them (eg pragmas).
I agree, its wise to address these issues. No doubt. No dispute. Thats not my issue either.
I agree, its done referring to an open recommendation. I read the document last week.
My point is that it is not being agreed with the ANSI committee first. Even _if_ the standard is likely to be the one adopted, it is not being done to an agreed timeframe and procedure. Yes, members of the ANSI committee are spitting furballs over this. No company should be allowed to railroad decisions like this. It took nearly ten years to get C stable, and whilst I do understand the need for a company to move faster than standards, the correct procedure is to define a standard (or use an existing one as you refer to), to mandate its use throughout your company and in parallel to work with the standards committee to agree on fine detail and procedure.
Even if one is a Microsoft fan, but this is just plain railroading. It is unacceptable behaviour of a (near) monopolist and should not be tolerated. Hell I even spoke to one of their compiler development team and
a) She didnt know for sure they were speaking to ANSI
b) She didnt really care
c) She flippantly referred to a web document she found to prove Microsoft were talking to ANSI
c) She dismissed the matter with the usual security marketing rubbish without even trying to understand why say strcpy is more risky than strncpy and hence why they *might* be treated differently.
I dont put a lot of weight in Microsoft decisions with this kind of attitude in their team.
