From owner-freebsd-arch  Sun Jan 21 12:31:10 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD5A37B400
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0LKUV901434;
	Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:30:31 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Message-Id: <200101212030.f0LKUV901434@harmony.village.org>
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r 
Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.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>  
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:30:31 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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