On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:30 PM, I. Szczesniak <iszczesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Nicolas Williams > <nicolas.willi...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:33:34PM -0400, Glenn Fowler wrote: >>> the _ast_ prefixes were added to libc names early on at the request >>> of the solaris side >>> >>> I believe this was for compatibility between objects compiled with >>> and without ast headers >>> >>> on other architectures the _ast_ prefix is only used on functions that >>> defy interposing (some compiiation systems have a large set of intrinsic >>> functions that infringe on libc) >>> >>> "eventually this will bite someone" -- well there would be problems >>> with and without the _ast_ prefix approach -- building without most >>> of the _ast_ prefixes is done by one macro >> >> There's a fair number of libc symbols that are safe to interpose on, > > No, they are only safe if the ABI matches exactly. > >> as >> long as the interposers provide the same semantics. The allocator is >> the main example (and, in fact, we often do interpose on the default >> allocator, using LD_PRELOAD as well just by linking apps with libumem, >> libwatchmalloc, etcetera), but not the only one.
libast has libumem/watchdog functionality builtin. There's no need to have extra libraries. Irek _______________________________________________ ksh93-integration-discuss mailing list ksh93-integration-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss
