Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 May 2012 17:47:06 +0300
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Switching /etc/*.db from bdb to tinycdb
Message-ID:  <20120502144706.GZ2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20120502134546.GM31034@azathoth.lan>
References:  <20120502114115.GG31034@azathoth.lan> <CA%2BhQ2%2Bgv%2BQ7SXbK-G5Lybjt4XOF_b3EvyxtQiOCL7pGxmgWRcg@mail.gmail.com> <20120502123149.GI31034@azathoth.lan> <20120502140235.GA91732@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20120502134546.GM31034@azathoth.lan>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--4TmI2E81ZwFURtAX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:45:47PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:02:35PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:31:49PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > Why importing to libc? to allow all the get*ent to parse the /etc=
/*.db
> > > > > files
> > > > >
> > > >=20
> > > > just curious, where do we have  the bdb 1.85 routines now ?
> > > > Are they all in libc, or split between libc and libutil ?
> > >=20
> > > All in libc
> >=20
> > ok then it makes sense to preserve the structure and have
> > everything in libc as des suggested. Just a curiosity again,
> > any estimate of code size ?
> >=20
>=20
> That is pretty small:
>      545 cdb.c
>       76 cdb_find.c
>       81 cdb_findnext.c
>       19 cdb_hash.c
>      113 cdb_init.c
>      184 cdb_make.c
>       50 cdb_make_add.c
>      204 cdb_make_put.c
>      100 cdb_seek.c
>       29 cdb_seq.c
>       18 cdb_unpack.c
>      126 cdb.h
>       41 cdb_int.h
>     1586 total
> regards,
> Bapt
I do not think that the size matters at all, as far as it fits into tens
of KB of compiled code.

What I do care a lot there, is the namespace pollution. I would strongly
object against exposing cdb symbols from libc, even in the private
namespace. Having the symbols hidden in libc is fine.

The reasoning is that we do not want our libc unneccessary interpose
symbols from third-party libs, and do not want to make a surprise for
somebody who wants to use the never version of the same library, or use
a symbol not documented in SUSv4 etc while linking to libc/libpthread
only.

--4TmI2E81ZwFURtAX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk+hSOkACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jatwCeNx/nPsr+Fe8xWzaFUasXNQEw
uhgAmwcU5SQCaG/5Kzlm9JH3Tza8Jd4v
=AEki
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4TmI2E81ZwFURtAX--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120502144706.GZ2358>