Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 6 May 2003 10:51:28 -0500
From:      "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Ben Mesander <ben@timing.com>
Cc:        Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
Subject:   Re: `Hiding' libc symbols
Message-ID:  <20030506155128.GB77956@madman.celabo.org>
In-Reply-To: <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com>
References:  <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506155128.GB77956>