Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:44:59 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@bellatlantic.net> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: ak03@gte.com, tlambert2@mindspring.com, dfr@nlsystems.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH: libc]Re: gnome on current Message-ID: <20021031094459.559e0292.kabaev@bellatlantic.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10210310907290.27891-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20021031000501.3e20a6a6.kabaev@bellatlantic.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10210310907290.27891-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:08:12 -0500 (EST) Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> wrote: > > Cool. Then let's be consistent and follow Solaris all the way. Libc > > on Solaris provides full set of pthread_? functions which in turn > > call weakly defined _pthread_?? counterparts. libpthread in turn > > provides strong definitions for _pthread_??. > > No, please see earlier messages in this thread. > Dan, could you please be consistent? You cited Solaris as an example against making all the symbols in libc_r strong. I gave you an answer that the only way why this works on Solaris is because libc itself provides weak pthread_ definitions. pthread_ functions in libc simply call their _pthread counterparts, which are also weekly defined in libc. libpthread defines _pthread_ symbols as strong and consequently its symbols override one provided by libc. Saying 'NO' to strong symbols in libc_r because Solaris does not do that and then saying 'NO' again to description on how Solaris really does things - that's where I lost you. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021031094459.559e0292.kabaev>