Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols (was Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen ...) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305011143400.11732-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030501154139.GA54878@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:34:57 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > Wrong. We need _ tricks for threads libraries to work properly and > > was the reason it was added in the first place. BDE came up with > > the idea and it was reviewed by him. > > Threads is completely another issue. We can do ANY tricks threads needs > when it is NOT affects normal linking (under "normal" I mean preventing > standard namespace replacement from outside of libc). If current > replacement way for threads not allows preventing, it should be changed > somehow to be truely libc internal, i.e. not explotable from outside of > libc/libc_r/other threads libs. I'm not sure what you mean, but what we have works well. There may be times that we want to call the internal _foo() and other times were we want to call foo(). How are you going to build a tool that can tell the difference if you reference foo() in both places? IMHO, I don't think we should make libc developers dumb so that they don't have to know whether they should use foo() or _foo(). It's also easier to know which one is being referenced when you are reading the source. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10305011143400.11732-100000>