Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:30:31 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <200101212030.f0LKUV901434@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 15:04:43 EST." <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121145246.3245A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121145246.3245A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121145246.3245A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes: : Well, we don't seem to be following that right now, but I'll adhere to : that in anything I add. So how about instead of using _thread_sys_foo, : we use __sys_foo: : : __sys_foo - actual system call : _foo - weak definition to __sys_foo : foo - weak definition to __sys_foo Good, but would it be easy to do __foo rather than _foo? Is there a reason why _foo would be desired? i'm not sure that I like all this weak stuff, but I'll reply with <silence> since I don't have <something better>. :-) Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101212030.f0LKUV901434>