Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:51:28 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Ben Mesander <ben@timing.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: `Hiding' libc symbols Message-ID: <20030506155128.GB77956@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com> References: <20030505225021.GA43345@nagual.pp.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305051855570.10283-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <16055.55244.458061.779430@piglet.timing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Ben Mesander wrote:
> In addition to ports which override libc functions like printf() for
> ease of porting, there are important ports, such as the Boehm garbage
> collector for C/C++ or electric fence, which _depend_ upon the ability
> to override libc functions such as malloc() and free().
>
> Whatever decision is eventually made must allow such ports to
> function.
>
> This has been brought up once before, but I do not see how any of the
> advocates for change have addressed it.
Probably because there is not much to address. I think it is
universally agreed that the allocator is likely to need to be
overridden. There are at least two solutions:
(a) Treat malloc & company as an exception: always call them by
their un-adorned name from within libc.
(b) Let these specialized applications override the adorned names
instead. There is probably already code within these ports to
deal with underscore-prefixed names.
I don't really have a preference for either solution.
Cheers,
--
Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal
nectar@celabo.org . jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@freebsd.org . nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506155128.GB77956>