Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:49:26 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010120134926.P69199@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <20010120153158.A88123@hamlet.nectar.com>; from n@nectar.com on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 03:31:58PM -0600 References: <3A68DDE8.7F8D3C51@vigrid.com> <20010120153158.A88123@hamlet.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 03:31:58PM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 07:38:00PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > I have one objection: > > [snip] > > _thread_sys_foo - actual syscall > > _foo - weak definition to _thread_sys_foo > > foo - weak definition to _thread_sys_foo > > > > I've changed all the instances of foo() to _foo() in libc for > > those hidden system calls. Anyone modifying or adding to libc > > will have to be careful to use the same conventions. > > Please, no. Kill `un-namespace' and let us continue to use the > correct name for `foo'. Adding underscores in front of lotsa common > calls hurt my eyes and hinders porting between different libc > implementations (e.g. our `old' one, other *BSDs). Do you have any alternative suggestions? We have been doing this for a number of system calls for almost a year in order to make thread cancellation work, and I can't think of any way to make linking against libc _and_ libpthread work correctly. Jason 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?20010120134926.P69199>