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>