Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 18:02:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051801150.1374-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030505205051.GA40572@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 22:25:54 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > So, I advocate hiding all symbols in libc by default. The Real World > > > doesn't seem to care whether the symbols are defined by any standard or > > > not. > > > > I'm with you, but I would also like to point out that there is a small > > number of ports which will require changes: ports like electricfence, > > boehm-gc and others that rely at least in part on replacing libc's > > malloc(), calloc(), realloc() and free(). > > Unless my point was not clear from my previous posts, I advocate exact > opposite: to unhide all standard symbols from libc, including here > standard prefixes like str*. We must not encourage programmer error > when he define standard function, it easily leads to unexpected results. > Better reject such error automatically at the linkage stage. Programmers > are always free to redefine their functions in case of conflict. Can't you still do what you want even with the standard symbols hidden? -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051801150.1374-100000>