This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A Linux/libc 5 patch for egcs 1.1.2
- To: hjl at varesearch dot com (H.J. Lu)
- Subject: Re: A Linux/libc 5 patch for egcs 1.1.2
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 01:59:48 -0700
- cc: drepper at cygnus dot com, egcs-patches at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <m10IqJQ-000AUZC@shanghai.varesearch.com>you write:
> All those functions have the leading '_'. That means
> they are internal to libio. If a user uses them, they
> get what they deserve. You can ask Ulrich why they are
> gone. My guesses are
Just because a function has a leading underscore doesn't mean it's not a
potential problem function. The symbol that started this whole discussion
was _IO_putc! Note the leading underscore.
The thing you need to do is verify the status of those functions and whether
or not they can actually cause problems.
For example, are any of them referenced internally in libc? If they are,
then we've got a problem since we could need the function that references
them from libc. Which would cause us to link in genops from libc.a which
would conflict with genops from libstdc++. So, do the analysis and tell me
what you find.
If those functions are not referenced anywhere in libc, then we can still
lose, but only if user code referenced those functions directly (which we
both agree it should not do). I can live with that.
Again, provide analysis, do not just assert that everything is OK.