From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1376
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: idunham@lavabit.com
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50886.132.241.65.164.1343257578.squirrel@lavabit.com>
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=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343257601 32725 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2012 23:06:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:06:41 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-1377-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 26 01:06:40 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-1377-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
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 <musl-return-1377-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1SuAf1-0006Nk-Kc
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:06:31 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 30518 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2012 23:06:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 30510 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2012 23:06:30 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com;
  b=EU9tVXPdpIJWRBtSjlkCL+qhea3KMAZ9cYXbhciohoGqr3w2gHEQ7+Z0vDRQx1j5JYA/4ePAjXJOeE4Ktbn+mVOCHFrymIsQylGSUQdy7xkzEMsyTEE0vIWBn1v46UU4SOsGw89/VvQ9IimNhAifLjuTULi9UZeiuAaBzKZZ4m8=;
  h=Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
In-Reply-To: <20120725151909.GR544@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.13
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1376
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1376>

> 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.