Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:36:43 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: jasone@canonware.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp. Message-ID: <20000119013643.A36827@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000113063740.1076A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:53:25AM -0500 References: <20000112211625.A21988@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000113063740.1076A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > I don't see why a plain function like mkstemp() should be written so > > specially. Couldn't all the hiding/changing done for threads be done > > w/in open() itself? Neither HP-UX 10.30 (which has kernel threads), nor > > Solaris 7 needs such open() hackery in mkstemp(). > > Given where we want to go with pthreads, and the proposed architecture, > I'm not sure why we need to have open -> _libc_open -> __open (or > whatever it is). Why isn't using _open internally in libc sufficient? > open is a weak symbol for _open, and libpthread can override the open > (weak symbol). Is this email being ignored? -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000119013643.A36827>