Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:11:31 -0500 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, threads@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <20111217031131.GA15194@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <FCFDD684-8E39-458B-A6A0-A7FE4834B888@bsdimp.com> References: <20111216214913.GA1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216220914.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111216221959.GB1771@hoeg.nl> <20111216223126.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <FCFDD684-8E39-458B-A6A0-A7FE4834B888@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:19:59PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote: > >> Hello Kostik, > >> > >> * Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, 20111216 23:09: > >>> If application that does not use the new interface supposed to be > >>> able to implement function with new names, then the not-underscored > >>> symbols must be weak. > >> > >> For example when an application wants to implement its own functions > >> that are named thrd_*(), for example? > > Yes. The realistic example is the code written to C99/SUSv4 conformance > > that happens to define thrd_<something>. > > > > It might be that easiest solution is to put the functions into > > separate library, besides defining them weak. > > I thought the canonical solution here was to say > > #if POSIX_VISIBLE >= 201201 > <prototypes here> > #endif > > Except this isn't posix. :( In this case it's #if __ISO_C_VISIBLE >= x (with the appropriate changes in <sys/cdefs.h> for the new standard). That deals with visibility issues in the compiler. The weak symbols deal with visibility issues in the linker.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111217031131.GA15194>