Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:32:39 -0500 (EST)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Cc:        "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r 
Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <200101212030.f0LKUV901434@harmony.village.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121145246.3245A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes:
> : Well, we don't seem to be following that right now, but I'll adhere to
> : that in anything I add.  So how about instead of using _thread_sys_foo,
> : we use __sys_foo:
> : 
> : 	__sys_foo - actual system call
> : 	_foo - weak definition to __sys_foo
> : 	foo - weak definition to __sys_foo
> 
> Good, but would it be easy to do __foo rather than _foo?  Is there a
> reason why _foo would be desired?

Oops, sorry, I missed the second question.  You need _foo to be
used within libc, so that when libc_r/libpthread is linked in,
it can provide a replacement function for it.  We also need to
determine if the function is a cancellation point or not, so
if you just had foo and __sys_foo, libc_r/libpthread would have
no way of knowing if foo was called from within libc or from
the user application.  The former is not a cancellation point,
while the latter is (if foo is read for example).

-- 
Dan Eischen



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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000>