Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:06:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 18:14:45 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > symbols in order to satisfy the needs of the threads library > > and to separate libc_r from libc, I would kindly suggest that > > you leave things alone. But if want to change things, please > > make sure they work with all the threads libraries that we > > currently have. I don't want the burden of doing this nor > > have it impact our current efforts. > > Please calm down, I don't want to break threads badly or anything like. Don't worry, I'm calm :-) > Especially when I don't understands threads details. At this stage we just > discuss here how to make things better. My point will be clear answering > on this simple question: > > What produce less errors in application and libraries? > a) Allow application to replace any standard function. I thought Jacques found lots of ports that replaced standard functions... > b) Produce linker error on such attempts. If there are a lot of applications that override printf() and the like, you might get lots of complaints about the new link warnings... > Please also note that I not treat functions like err(), warn() etc. as > standard, so namespace.h is right for them. OK. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000>