Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: idunham@...abit.com
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches

> 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.

Precisely.

> 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...).
>
> With that said, for now I'd probably prefer to keep plain strndup as
> the "real" name.

OK.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.