From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 08:51:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D4437B401 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 08:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4684643F3F for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 08:51:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@celabo.org) Received: from madman.celabo.org (madman.celabo.org [10.0.1.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "madman.celabo.org", Issuer "celabo.org CA" (verified OK)) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1E0CE; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:51:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by madman.celabo.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 28F7978C66; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:51:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:51:28 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Ben Mesander Message-ID: <20030506155128.GB77956@madman.celabo.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Ben Mesander , Daniel Eischen , "Andrey A. Chernov" , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com> X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i-ja.1 cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org cc: Daniel Eischen cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:51:28 -0000 On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Ben Mesander wrote: > In addition to ports which override libc functions like printf() for > ease of porting, there are important ports, such as the Boehm garbage > collector for C/C++ or electric fence, which _depend_ upon the ability > to override libc functions such as malloc() and free(). > > Whatever decision is eventually made must allow such ports to > function. > > This has been brought up once before, but I do not see how any of the > advocates for change have addressed it. Probably because there is not much to address. I think it is universally agreed that the allocator is likely to need to be overridden. There are at least two solutions: (a) Treat malloc & company as an exception: always call them by their un-adorned name from within libc. (b) Let these specialized applications override the adorned names instead. There is probably already code within these ports to deal with underscore-prefixed names. I don't really have a preference for either solution. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se