Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:13:39 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: About those weak aliases * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2019-09-02 19:01:18 -0400]: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:10:10PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > (could be a strong alias, weakness of public api symbols > > doesn't matter, you can only observe the difference by > > getting a link error when static linking a conflicting > > definition, but that is non-standard: when the symbol is > > reserved for the implementation user code must not use it) > > I don't follow here. There are very few if any places where strong > alias would be a valid substitute for weak. Where weak aliases provide > dummy implementations of functionality that's only needed if something > else is linked, strong would be a link error if both were linked. > Where weak aliases are used because the identifier being defined is > reserved to the application in some or all standard profiles, a strong > alias would produce a link error if the application actually made use > of its reservation and the file defining the alias got linked (and the > whole point is that this can and does happen). you are right. sorry
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.