Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:19:31 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010122121931.A95321@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20010122094837.G93103@hamlet.nectar.com>; from n@nectar.com on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:48:37AM -0600 References: <eischen@vigrid.com> <200101212240.f0LMeSc20272@green.dyndns.org> <20010122094837.G93103@hamlet.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:48:37AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:40:28PM -0500, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > If it's OK for folks to see and use __foo in libc as opposed > > > to _foo, I can make that change. > > > > It's much too dangerous, I believe, to let libc escape out into the > > application's namespace much. > > In Daniel's proposal, _foo would only be a macro seen in the library > source. Oops, needed more coffee. _foo would be a weak reference, not a macro. > The external symbols would start with `__', so application namespace > pollution is dealt with. IMHO. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org 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?20010122121931.A95321>