Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:39:54 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <200101220139.f0M1dtc71205@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:54:48 EST." <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121175030.24988A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > > > If it's OK for folks to see and use __foo in libc as opposed > > > to _foo, I can make that change. > > > > It's much too dangerous, I believe, to let libc escape out into the > > application's namespace much. > > Remember that this is already possible. Our current syscalls are > _foo with foo being a weak definition to _foo. We currently use > foo all over libc and noone seems to object until now. That's true. But if you're willing to change it, I think it's worth doing. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101220139.f0M1dtc71205>