Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:44:37 +1000 (EST)
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>
Cc:        cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, peter@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re:  cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys Makefile.inc
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008011432250.5150-100000@besplex.bde.org>
In-Reply-To: <200007311747.e6VHlxx25224@lor.watermarkgroup.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Luoqi Chen wrote:

> > peter       2000/07/28 17:28:44 PDT
> > 
> >   Modified files:
> >     lib/libc/sys         Makefile.inc 
> >   Log:
> >   Deal with the exit entry in MIASM changing to sys_exit.
> >   This Is A Hack(TM).
> > 
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.79      +2 -2      src/lib/libc/sys/Makefile.inc

This was bogus.  The change to sys_exit was a bug which has been backed out
in most places, but not here.

> Why don't we prefix all syscalls with sys_?

It would be gratuitous renaming.  There is no conflict between syscall (or
library) names and kernel names.  The conflict for exit() is caused by
abusing the hosted cc as a freestanding one.  exit() isn't even a syscall
(_exit() is the syscall).   There are potentially more serious conflicts
for printf(), malloc() and str*(), etc.  We use the library interfaces for
all of these except malloc(), but in a hosted compiler could in theory
generate library calls for them.

Bruce



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0008011432250.5150-100000>