From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jan 21 13:36:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E2037B404 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0LLaM901943; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:36:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Message-Id: <200101212136.f0LLaM901943@harmony.village.org> To: Daniel Eischen Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:32:39 EST." References: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:36:22 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message 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