From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1373 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luca Barbato Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:52:46 +0200 Message-ID: <5010164E.9080403@gentoo.org> References: <20120722181332.191d4fa5@newbook> <20120722183828.20b71c9d@newbook> <500FFEEB.9030004@gentoo.org> <20120725151909.GR544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343231583 18884 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2012 15:53:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:53:03 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1374-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Jul 25 17:53:01 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 1Su3tV-0004ov-Kh for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:53:01 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7251 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2012 15:53:00 -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 7243 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 15:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120529 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: <20120725151909.GR544@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1373 Archived-At: On 07/25/2012 05:19 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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...). 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. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero