Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 03:18:42 +0400 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030505231837.GA44533@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030505231135.GA21953@madman.celabo.org> References: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> <XFMail.20030501144502.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030501191027.GA53801@madman.celabo.org> <20030505110601.H53365@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030505175426.GA19352@madman.celabo.org> <xzpk7d53zu5.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20030505205051.GA40572@nagual.pp.ru> <20030505231135.GA21953@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 18:11:35 -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > applications that (IMHO most legitimately, some not) define symbols > that are technically in some standard's space, such as `snprintf', > `strlcpy', `accept', `close', ... ? ``Fix'' them all? Throw them > away? Fix them all. It is as easy as putting #define printf myprintf somewhere into headers or even into CC flags. When this task is spreaded among corresponding ports maintainers, the number for each of them will be not too big. > What about applications that are already compiled? Leave them as is. I mean linker time error, not runtime. > I think such fascism would result in us behaving in a very un-UNIX > fashion. And I think just opposite.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030505231837.GA44533>