Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:50 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Message-ID: <200102152034.f1FKYoW63859@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:18:17 PST." <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> <200102151536.f1FFaeE77660@billy-club.village.org> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215125446.7929A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> Alfred Perlstein writes: : * Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> [010215 10:15] wrote: : > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: : > > In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010215091552.2023A@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes: : > > : Let's just bump the libraries and be done with it. : > > : > > That's *ALL* the libraries, even in ports? : > : > Hmm, perhaps not then. It would be nice to get rid of __sF; if we : > don't do it now, will we ever? : : I still think that no matter how painful we should just loose __sF : in -current, afaik the only thing depending on it is the std* : macros. Yes. That's the "only" thing. But *EVERYTHING* depends on those macros. Just about every single library has at least one fprintf(stderr, "Something bad happened"); in it. We have to be smart about how we transition away from __sF. If we aren't, we badly break binary compatibility. We all want to get rid of it, but the way Peter did it is *WRONG* and we need to retrench and do it *RIGHT*. OK? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102152034.f1FKYoW63859>