* nix INTUSE?
@ 2002-08-04 17:36 Roland McGrath
2002-08-04 17:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Roland McGrath @ 2002-08-04 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GNU libc hackers
As far as I can tell, Jakub's new stuff ought to apply just fine to
variables as well as functions. Despite its name, hidden_proto just does a
declaration with __typeof, so it should do fine for any kind of C symbol.
Can't we use this to get rid of all the INTUSE/INTDEF stuff entirely now?
(And thus to deuglify the code.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: nix INTUSE?
2002-08-04 17:36 nix INTUSE? Roland McGrath
@ 2002-08-04 17:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
2002-08-04 17:47 ` Roland McGrath
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Drepper @ 2002-08-04 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roland McGrath; +Cc: GNU libc hackers
Roland McGrath wrote:
> As far as I can tell, Jakub's new stuff ought to apply just fine to
> variables as well as functions. Despite its name, hidden_proto just does a
> declaration with __typeof, so it should do fine for any kind of C symbol.
> Can't we use this to get rid of all the INTUSE/INTDEF stuff entirely now?
> (And thus to deuglify the code.)
We cannot entirely get rid of it. There are several places where we
define special *_internal symbols.
If you want to convert some cases feel free but I'd say there are more
important thangs to do.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: nix INTUSE?
2002-08-04 17:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
@ 2002-08-04 17:47 ` Roland McGrath
2002-08-04 18:41 ` Ulrich Drepper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Roland McGrath @ 2002-08-04 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Drepper; +Cc: GNU libc hackers
> We cannot entirely get rid of it. There are several places where we
> define special *_internal symbols.
I'm not following you. If something is entirely internal, we just declare
it with attribute_hidden and that's all that's needed. If something is
exported, then we can use libc_hidden_proto.
> If you want to convert some cases feel free but I'd say there are more
> important thangs to do.
Well, sure. I am just trying to verify that my thinking is correct.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: nix INTUSE?
2002-08-04 17:47 ` Roland McGrath
@ 2002-08-04 18:41 ` Ulrich Drepper
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Drepper @ 2002-08-04 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roland McGrath; +Cc: GNU libc hackers
Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm not following you. If something is entirely internal, we just declare
> it with attribute_hidden and that's all that's needed. If something is
> exported, then we can use libc_hidden_proto.
The hidden_proto/hidden_def trick does not work with versioning. In
these case you have to work around the versioning and add alises to the
original names. There were a few more special cases, all related to
compatiblity hacks.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-05 1:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-08-04 17:36 nix INTUSE? Roland McGrath
2002-08-04 17:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
2002-08-04 17:47 ` Roland McGrath
2002-08-04 18:41 ` Ulrich Drepper
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).