From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 5 16:06:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B077137B401 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 16:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E76543F3F for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 16:06:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h45N6kBg011962; Mon, 5 May 2003 19:06:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (eischen@localhost)h45N6jPf011957; Mon, 5 May 2003 19:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:06:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: "Andrey A. Chernov" In-Reply-To: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 23:06:48 -0000 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