From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Aug 22 8:16:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB15737B42C for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id LAA12508; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:16:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it time yet? [was Re: Weak symbols] In-Reply-To: <20000822083335.C38787@hamlet.nectar.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > 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. I think this is basically correct. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message