Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:08:53 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030506180853.GH79167@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305061059490.37208-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20030506175557.GE79167@madman.celabo.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305061059490.37208-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:02:24AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > If you could do your census again but this time showing which symbols > clash we would have a better idea of what we are talking about.. Uh, that is the list I posted. Yes, that long list included clashing symbols only. > Probably most of these packages have these function 'in case' the system > does not. It's a pretty good mix of those that do it `in case' and those that do it for their own reasons. > You can also bet that if compiled on Linux they don't include > these functions if Linux has them, so I'm willing to bet that many of > them have ways to turn off much of the excess stuff. You would lose the bet. These applications compile and run fine on FreeBSD _now_, also. Whether or not something in libc will change in the future to break it is the question (as in the qpopper example). Or maybe the `bad' code path hasn't yet been hit. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506180853.GH79167>