Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 6 May 2003 10:26:05 -0500
From:      "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: `Hiding' libc symbols
Message-ID:  <20030506152605.GE77708@madman.celabo.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030506165850.Y601@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
References:  <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> <20030505110601.H53365@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030506093754.B838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <3EB7CC73.9C61C27E@mindspring.com> <20030506165850.Y601@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:14:28PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
> I have checked with the ISO-C draft I have around here. From a principal
> point of view, we are allowed to disable the redefinition of C-library
> functions. The question is, what does it help us and what do we loose:
> 
> It helps us to catch one particular kind of bugs in 3rd party software,
> where the software has a buggy implementation (in the context of our own
> implementation) of a standard function. This also rules actually non-buggy
> implementations of functions that adhere to newer standards than our own
> implementations. This means that in order to actually help we have to go
> through each instance of a port redefining a libc function and decide,
> whether it is buggy, the same as our implementation or simply more
> featureful and whether it is compatible with our implementation.
> 
> We loose the ability to do certain well known tricks (which have worked
> since C was invented), most of which help in debugging (f.e. replacing
> malloc or str* for range checking) and we make the porting of several
> software packages to FreeBSD actually harder.

For these reasons and others, I cannot support any attempt to make
it impossible for a programmer to define his/her own symbols that
conflict with the [foo] Standard.

Or stated more agressively, the day the FreeBSD toolchain refuses
to allow me to define my own version of strlcpy _for use by my
application_ is the day I find another development platform.

Tools, not policy.

If I can create code to override the internal libc strlcpy, too,
that's just a plus.  (Note we have this today even with `hidden'
symbols.)

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine   . NTT/Verio SME      . FreeBSD UNIX       . Heimdal
nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506152605.GE77708>