Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:25:57 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030506152557.GD77708@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <3EB7CC73.9C61C27E@mindspring.com> References: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> <XFMail.20030501144502.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030505110601.H53365@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030505175426.GA19352@madman.celabo.org> <20030506092519.GA3158@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <3EB7CC73.9C61C27E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:53:39AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Perhaps instead of asking how to prevent symbol replacement, one > should be asking how to get rid of incestuous functions in the > library implementation for standard library functions. > > No, I do not expect "_fmt" (or whatever) to go away from common > code in printf/sprintf/whatever. But I do expect it to be "_fmt" > instead of "fmt", i.e. in implementation space, rather than in > the symbol space legal for users to use. This is exactly what I wish to achieve. This is exactly the approach that I took with strlcpy [1]: the internal implementation is called `_strlcpy', while the exported symbol remains `strlcpy'. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se [1] Before I backed it out in an attempt to demonstrate good will.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506152557.GD77708>