Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:43:05 +1100 From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> Cc: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdio _flock_stub.c local.h Message-ID: <20040309154305.S234@freebsd3.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20040309043646.GA89072@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>; from tjr@freebsd.org on Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:36:46PM %2B1100 References: <200403090245.i292j0a6035728@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040309032248.GA88649@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040309143223.Q234@freebsd3.cimlogic.com.au> <20040309035532.GA88825@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040309150536.R234@freebsd3.cimlogic.com.au> <20040309043646.GA89072@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:36:46PM +1100, Tim Robbins wrote: > They are. The structure is an implementation detail, and the layout > or size could change between releases, or it's definition could be > moved into a libc-private header entirely. That's right. But the whole _extra implementation was performed in the way it was to retain ABI compatibility. > Threads are useful. Supporting some phantom application you won't name > that initializes its own FILE structures instead of using the correct > interfaces is not terribly useful. The application isn't publicly available. I'm not sure where the code originated. I also don't know of applications that do this. It just didn't seem to be a big deal to me. Shrug. > I'm arguing over a principle, and trying to stop FreeBSD getting locked > into a certain arrangement of stdio internals for the sake of broken > applications. I'll back out the change then and keep it local then. It's not worth my time arguing this. -- John Birrell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040309154305.S234>