Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:31:14 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, arch@FreeBSD.org, threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <FCFDD684-8E39-458B-A6A0-A7FE4834B888@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216220914.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111216221959.GB1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19:59PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: >> Hello Kostik, >> >> * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, 20111216 23:09: >>> If application that does not use the new interface supposed to be >>> able to implement function with new names, then the not-underscored >>> symbols must be weak. >> >> For example when an application wants to implement its own functions >> that are named thrd_*(), for example? > Yes. The realistic example is the code written to C99/SUSv4 conformance > that happens to define thrd_<something>. > > It might be that easiest solution is to put the functions into > separate library, besides defining them weak. I thought the canonical solution here was to say #if POSIX_VISIBLE >= 201201 <prototypes here> #endif Except this isn't posix. :( Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FCFDD684-8E39-458B-A6A0-A7FE4834B888>