Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:29:24 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl>, Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys Makefile.inc Message-ID: <200007312129.OAA66790@netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000731142149.62978B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > > -On [20000731 19:50], Luoqi Chen (luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) wrote: > > >Why don't we prefix all syscalls with sys_? > > > > It would solve namespace clashes at least. > > > > I am curious about other reasons why or why not. > > Well, sys_ is still in the application namespace. _whatever might make > sense, and is what I've been using when I need to wrap the syscall with a > libc wrapper. But we were talking about internal kernel namespace here, not something that has any effect on application space. How it is exported to libc is a different thing. IMHO, the linkage between the kernel syscalls.master, syscalls.mk etc is too error prone and frequently leads to disasters with undefined symbols when the kernel and userland source get out of sync. I think it is about time to have a seperate libc syscall list for generating the stubs etc. It should not be necessary to have src/sys present in order to build libc. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007312129.OAA66790>