From owner-freebsd-arch  Sun Jan 21 13:24:13 2001
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 2615E37B400
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from eischen@localhost)
	by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id QAA14344;
	Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:23:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:23:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r 
In-Reply-To: <200101212030.f0LKUV901434@harmony.village.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121161939.13871A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121145246.3245A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Daniel Eischen writes:
> : Well, we don't seem to be following that right now, but I'll adhere to
> : that in anything I add.  So how about instead of using _thread_sys_foo,
> : we use __sys_foo:
> : 
> : 	__sys_foo - actual system call
> : 	_foo - weak definition to __sys_foo
> : 	foo - weak definition to __sys_foo
> 
> Good, but would it be easy to do __foo rather than _foo?  Is there a
> reason why _foo would be desired?

Simply to differentiate between syscalls and library routines.

> i'm not sure that I like all this weak stuff, but I'll reply with
> <silence> since I don't have <something better>. :-)

-- 
Dan Eischen



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message