Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:27:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen check_utility_compat.c confstr.c un-namespace.hgethostbydns.c getnameinfo.c hesiod.c ... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304300024280.1846-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030430002014.GA1190@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:49:09PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Jacques Vidrine <nectar@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > Log: > > > `Hide' strlcpy and strlcat (using the namespace.h / __weak_reference > > > technique) so that we don't wind up calling into an application's > > > version if the application defines them. > > > > We should probably do this for every libc function that is used within > > libc... > > No we shouldn't. If I understand you correctly, it prevents me from > linking in my own malloc()/free() and having the entire system use it. > Being able to replace the use of a libc function for *all* running of a > program is a very useful thing. Why can't you still do this? You just have to know the real name of the function you want to override. Is malloc any different than _malloc, so that you can't supply your own with the correct symbol? -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10304300024280.1846-100000>