From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 00:40:07 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC4B106566B; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989B58FC12; Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.33] (99-195-103-194.dyn.centurytel.net [99.195.103.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBH0VIhF018743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:31:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:31:14 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216220914.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111216221959.GB1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> To: Kostik Belousov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.6]); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:31:22 -0700 (MST) Cc: Ed Schouten , arch@FreeBSD.org, threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:40:07 -0000 On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19:59PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: >> Hello Kostik, >> >> * Kostik Belousov , 20111216 23:09: >>> If application that does not use the new interface supposed to be >>> able to implement function with new names, then the not-underscored >>> symbols must be weak. >> >> For example when an application wants to implement its own functions >> that are named thrd_*(), for example? > Yes. The realistic example is the code written to C99/SUSv4 conformance > that happens to define thrd_. > > It might be that easiest solution is to put the functions into > separate library, besides defining them weak. I thought the canonical solution here was to say #if POSIX_VISIBLE >= 201201 #endif Except this isn't posix. :( Warner