[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120725151909.GR544@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:19:09 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/10] GLIBC ABI patches
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
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.
