From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1372 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:19:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20120725151909.GR544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120722181332.191d4fa5@newbook> <20120722183828.20b71c9d@newbook> <500FFEEB.9030004@gentoo.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343229569 32587 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2012 15:19:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:19:29 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1373-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jul 25 17:19:27 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Su3N0-0002o8-1m for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:19:26 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 18114 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2012 15:19:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 18106 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 15:19:25 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <500FFEEB.9030004@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1372 Archived-At: 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...). With that said, for now I'd probably prefer to keep plain strndup as the "real" name. Rich