From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May  6 11:08:23 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 B10BB37B401; Tue,  6 May 2003 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.193.193.107])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9B9E443F85; Tue,  6 May 2003 11:08:21 -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 h46I8FiT071154;
	Tue, 6 May 2003 21:08:16 +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 h46I8Elf071150;
	Tue, 6 May 2003 21:08:14 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from netch)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:08:14 +0300
From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@lucky.net>
To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030506180814.GK83663@lucky.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030506153641.GI77708@madman.celabo.org>
X-42: On
X-Verify-Sender: verified
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 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
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 18:08:24 -0000

 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-