From owner-cvs-all  Tue Apr 28 04:30:43 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA27625
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 04:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA27571
          for <cvs-committers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 04:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA29547;
	Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:28:11 +1000
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:28:11 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199804281128.VAA29547@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au
Subject: Re: Syscall as weak symbols
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>>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.

The implementation method shouldn't be encoded in interface names.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message