From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jan 21 17:40:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from green.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7BE37B400; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:40:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (yr8x7g@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.dyndns.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0M1dtc71205; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:39:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200101220139.f0M1dtc71205@green.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Daniel Eischen Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Warner Losh , "Jacques A. Vidrine" , arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen of "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:54:48 EST." From: "Brian F. Feldman" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:39:54 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > If it's OK for folks to see and use __foo in libc as opposed > > > to _foo, I can make that change. > > > > It's much too dangerous, I believe, to let libc escape out into the > > application's namespace much. > > Remember that this is already possible. Our current syscalls are > _foo with foo being a weak definition to _foo. We currently use > foo all over libc and noone seems to object until now. That's true. But if you're willing to change it, I think it's worth doing. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message