Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:31:58 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010120153158.A88123@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <3A68DDE8.7F8D3C51@vigrid.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 07:38:00PM -0500 References: <3A68DDE8.7F8D3C51@vigrid.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 07:38:00PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: [snip] > Overview of the changes > ----------------------- Thanks for the hard work and the great overview! I have one objection: [snip] > _thread_sys_foo - actual syscall > _foo - weak definition to _thread_sys_foo > foo - weak definition to _thread_sys_foo > > I've changed all the instances of foo() to _foo() in libc for > those hidden system calls. Anyone modifying or adding to libc > will have to be careful to use the same conventions. Please, no. Kill `un-namespace' and let us continue to use the correct name for `foo'. Adding underscores in front of lotsa common calls hurt my eyes and hinders porting between different libc implementations (e.g. our `old' one, other *BSDs). By the way, should it be __thread_sys_foo and __foo? Two underscores? ISTR some rule about using a single leading underscore for file scope (e.g. macros) and two for global scope. Finally, I hope this will lead us into introducing all non- Standard C (or at least non-POSIX) function identifiers in the same fashion, so as to clean up our namespace. For example, err(3). Thanks again & Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010120153158.A88123>