Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:36:22 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> 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: <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:32:39 EST." <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121162703.14751A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes: : 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). I understand that. I guess my question is why name it _foo instead of __foo? I see the need for the tripartiteness, just not the need to call it _foo. Warner 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?200101212136.f0LLaM901943>