[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:52:46 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
On 07/25/2012 05:19 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 04:12:59PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 07/23/2012 03:38 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
>>> +weak_alias(poll, __poll);
>>
>>> +weak_alias(fscanf, __isoc99_fscanf);
>>
>>> +weak_alias(sscanf, __isoc99_sscanf);
>>
>>> -char *strndup(const char *s, size_t n)
>>> +char *__strndup(const char *s, size_t n)
>>
>>> +weak_alias(__strndup, strndup);
>>
>> Why strndup is different?
>
> I think the idea is that we might want to use __strndup internally in
> functions which can't expose the strndup name. However, as we haven't
> yet had a need for that, I suspect it's unlikely. Also, __strndup
> isn't really an ugly name (it makes sense as the "internal" name for
> strndup if such usage were needed), but __isoc99_scanf is a huge WTF
> unless you know the reason it exists in glibc (and then it just makes
> you hate glibc even more...).
Would be nice make all those alias consistent, might be interesting see
if linker scripts could be use for similar purposes, keeping the core
code cleaner.
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
