From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jan 22 7:51:20 2001 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 E1BEE37B402; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 07:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamlet.nectar.com (hamlet.nectar.com [10.0.1.102]) by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36333193E4; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:51:01 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by hamlet.nectar.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f0MFp1g93408; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:51:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nectar@spawn.nectar.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:51:01 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Daniel Eischen Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Warner Losh , arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request For Review: libc/libc_r changes to allow -lc_r Message-ID: <20010122095101.H93103@hamlet.nectar.com> References: <200101212240.f0LMeSc20272@green.dyndns.org> 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 Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:54:48PM -0500 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:54:48PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > Remember that this is already possible. Our current syscalls are > _foo with foo being a weak definition to _foo. We currently use > foo all over libc and noone seems to object until now. I've objected, but I was not willing to address the issue without code. I still don't have code, but since you do, I thought I'd add my 2 cents :-) Besides, _foo is not really `all over libc' -- just a few calls here and there. Hiding everything needing to be hidden would cause a lot more _foo, _bar, _baz, to the point of being annoying (IMHO). Cheers, -- 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