Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:56:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030506095424.G838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <20030505232012.GC21953@madman.celabo.org> References: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <20030505232012.GC21953@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: JAV>Hi, Daniel! JAV> JAV>On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 07:06:45PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: JAV>> I thought Jacques found lots of ports that replaced standard JAV>> functions... JAV> JAV>I did a survey of 6,817 packages. Over 700 of them defined symbols JAV>that are also defined in libc. The symbols which `clashed' are below JAV>for the curious. (I only examined symbols in the text segment.) There is no guarantee that you 'fix' the port by hiding the symbol. You may as well break it. This depends on the function itself and on the internal relationships in libc. You have to go through each individual port and see what happens anyway. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506095424.G838>