Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:08:14 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@lucky.net> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030506180814.GK83663@lucky.net> In-Reply-To: <20030506153641.GI77708@madman.celabo.org> References: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> <XFMail.20030501144502.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030505110601.H53365@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030505175426.GA19352@madman.celabo.org> <20030506093754.B838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030506092519.GA3158@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20030506112711.K838@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030506153641.GI77708@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:36:41, nectar wrote about "Re: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols": > Renaming the internal implementation of `foo' to `_foo', and creating > a weak symbol alias with the original name (`foo'). Within libc, > use the `_foo' name when the semantics must be known (e.g. when the > behavior must not be overridden by an application accidently, i.e. > almost always). Macros in `namespace.h' help the compiler with > prototypes etc. OK. How will you distinguish accidental replacing of libc symbols from intentional replacing? It is not reasonable (just IMHO) to divide libc symbols into `allowed to override' and 'disallowed to override' groups. Well, one can say: if, e.g., application exposes Posix accordance, it should not see strlcpy() (let's continue to use it as example) from libc. So, define _strlcpy if not _POSIX_SOURCE of analog. Well, consider next Posix will include it. Define non-hidden version and break compatibility of old applications? If I don't understand something, please explain. But I think now is standards@ issue. -netch-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506180814.GK83663>