From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 10:08:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F2337B401; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.193.193.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B5143F75; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netch@lucky.net) Received: from netch@localhost [127.0.0.1] (netch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua with ESMTP id h46H8NiT058849; Tue, 6 May 2003 20:08:24 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch@burka.carrier.kiev.ua) Received: (from netch@localhost) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h46H8NPM058846; Tue, 6 May 2003 20:08:23 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 20:08:23 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Message-ID: <20030506170823.GI83663@lucky.net> References: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> <20030501191027.GA53801@madman.celabo.org> <20030505110601.H53365@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030505175426.GA19352@madman.celabo.org> <20030505205051.GA40572@nagual.pp.ru> <20030505231135.GA21953@madman.celabo.org> <20030505231837.GA44533@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-42: On X-Verify-Sender: verified cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: netch@lucky.net List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 17:08:34 -0000 Tue, May 06, 2003 at 04:23:48, des wrote about "Re: `Hiding' libc symbols": >> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 18:11:35 -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > >> I think such fascism would result in us behaving in a very un-UNIX > >> fashion. >> And I think just opposite. > And I think you just don't understand the issue, and should leave it > to those who do while you take time off to read ISO/IEC 9899:1990. Can you please say some extraction from it for those poor guys not having got this standard? -netch-