Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:24:15 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio Makefile.inc unlocked.c Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10301101516570.28820-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200301101832.h0AIWjBS026224@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:15:05 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> said: > > > For functions that aren't defined by POSIX or other specs, we should > > use "__" versions of those functions with the non-"__" versions being > > weak definitions to them. > > Not necessarily. That is only true if: > > (1) The calling function is either Standard or in the same source file > as a Standard function, and > > (2) the function called is not already in a namespace reserved by the > Standard. They are all in unlocked.c, so are clearerr* and filno* reserved by POSIX? Plus it would eliminate a function call/return to implement clearerr_unlocked and fileno_unlocked as just: __weak_reference(clearerr_unlocked, __sclearerr); __weak_reference(fileno_unlocked, __sfileno); Actually, you could do the same with the others too, no? -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10301101516570.28820-100000>