Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:29:21 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (Dmitrij Tejblum), joelh@gnu.org, fenner@parc.xerox.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bogus errno twiddling not by lstat... Message-ID: <199806222229.GAA04192@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:05:39 GMT." <199806221705.KAA10780@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Since the malloc.conf file is unnecessarily being looked for in the > > > printf case (since ld.so already caused it to be looked for, and didn't > > > find it), I think the redundant call to llok for it is certainly worth > > > removing. > > > > You have repeated this misinformation at least 10th times, I think. > > malloc.conf looked up only on first call to malloc(). ld.so probably > > call malloc() from the C library quite rare. > > Do you remember the discussion about the __error hacks to ld.so? > > Initially when I was attempting to use weak symbols as they are > documented to work (but they don't), I had a number of myseterious > lockups on startup. Weak and indirects are not implemented in ld.so for a.out at runtime. The only place that they are implemented is in the elf ld.so and in both the a.out and elf ld(1). It shouldn't be too hard to get the a.out ld.so to do something sensible though for weak and/or indirect symbols. Cheers, -Peter 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?199806222229.GAA04192>