Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:26:16 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: Syscall as weak symbols Message-ID: <199804281026.UAA11521@troll.dtir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <199804280506.PAA12208@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "28 Apr 1998 15:12:00 %2B1000" References: <199804280506.PAA12208@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 28th April 1998, Bruce Evans wrote: >>As part of a cleanup to things related to libc, I'd like to change >>the SYSCALL macro to generate (something like) __syscall_name as >>the non-weak symbol for the `name' syscall, and declare name as a >>weak symbol... >This seems reasonable, provided weak symbols work right now. I would >prefer a prefix of `__' or even `_' instead of `_syscall_'. Why? It seems to me that leading underscores are now over used and essentially meaningless. A prefix of _syscall_ has meaning, and we are not in danger of overflowing identifier length limits. Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804281026.UAA11521>