From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 1 11:45:03 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 80D6E37B401 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 11:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618D243FDD for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29071 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 1 May 2003 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx ([216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h41IiwOv026453; Thu, 1 May 2003 14:44:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030501182820.GA53641@madman.celabo.org> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:45:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 18:45:03 -0000 On 01-May-2003 Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:05:49PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> Agreed. Somebody just needs to sit down and fix the qpopper port and >> then the argument for this change goes away and it can be reverted. > > qpopper is not the point. The qpopper port was fixed just a couple of > hours after I made the commit to libc. (I had sent the qpopper patch > to the port maintainer earlier.) Preventing the bogus behavior from > ever happening again was the point. > > A lot of folks are focused on qpopper and strlcpy. I believe that > the big picture is being missed. I moved this thread to freebsd-arch > so that we could discuss how to hide all (or most, or non-standard) > symbols in libc. Not so that we could argue about this particular > commit. It seems that many people don't think the symbols in libc need hiding. What is the reason to prevent a user from overriding the functions used by libc? malloc() and free() are an example you agree to, and I don't think we should hide things willy-nilly. There are many uses for overriding symbols in libc that I'm sure neither of us have thought of. Why artificially limit it? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/