From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Feb 15 12:35:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E623537B4EC for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1FKYoW63859; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Message-Id: <200102152034.f1FKYoW63859@harmony.village.org> To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: The whole libc thing. Cc: Daniel Eischen , arch@FreeBSD.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> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:50 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20010215101817.G3274@fw.wintelcom.net> Alfred Perlstein writes: : * Daniel Eischen [010215 10:15] wrote: : > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Warner Losh wrote: : > > In message 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