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