Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:35:24 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > > 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. Considering that the linker is never run on the static library that would be rather difficult. Even if it were possible, I think it would just subtract a trivial amount of cruft that's easy to ignore from the .c files at the expense of making the build system much uglier and more GNU-binutils-dependent. If lots of people think it's confusing having a mix of aliases that are for internal/legitimate purposes and for ugly ABI purposes, I either add comments to all the ABI-only ones that they can be ignored by somebody reading the source, or I could do something like the LFS64 macros and have a separate macro for the ABI-only aliases that would be self-documenting of their purpose and that could be nulled out by extremists who want them gone... Rich
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.