From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Aug 22 6:33:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403BE37B43F for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B7A1925E; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:33:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA38823; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:33:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:33:35 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Daniel Eischen Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it time yet? [was Re: Weak symbols] Message-ID: <20000822083335.C38787@hamlet.nectar.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Daniel Eischen , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20000821175359.C26324@hamlet.nectar.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from eischen@vigrid.com on Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 08:46:44PM -0400 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 08:46:44PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > When we want to (someday) build libpthread, it will have to be linkable > with libc. So I'll admit that I'm not ready to tackle this problem, as I don't fully understand it. But perhaps we should burn that bridge when we get to it. If I understand correctly, than implementing weak aliases in libc today will not hinder a libpthread, i.e. the same issues will need to be dealt with whether libc remains as is or we add weak aliases. Correct me if I am being shortsighted or if I have this wrong. Thank for the help, -- 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