Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:50:37 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, dfr@nlsystems.com Subject: Re: gnome on current Message-ID: <200210291950.g9TJobld008462@arch20m.dellroad.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10210291333001.18141-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> "from Daniel Eischen at Oct 29, 2002 01:41:56 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen writes: > > It might have been slightly clearer if the _foo and __foo names had been > > reversed, so that "foo" always weakly referenced "_foo" whether or not > > the function was a cancellation point. But that would have probably > > caused a lot of changes in existing code (?). > > Non-cancellation points are always single underscores so that > the implementation of libc can always use _foo and not care > about whether to use _foo() or __foo(). Libc should never > call functions that are cancellation points so it makes it > easier to just know that you should use the underscore version > of the system calls. The same holds true when libc wants > to use pthread_* routines; it should only use the underscore > variants so that libc_r can tell the difference between the > implementation's locks and the application's locks. Right, forgot about that.. Thanks, -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210291950.g9TJobld008462>