Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> I seem to recall squashing a request to do that many years ago >> (with great relish). Maybe twice. > Speaking of "squashing", there have been multiple attempts to > publicly expose these symbols. The rationale is that third party > libraries could use the same trick - by binding to _read() rather > than read(). That "trick" has merit, but I don't think it ever > happened. > > (Bart, I think you were a proponent of this. Comments?) > > - jek3 >
I was and am a proponent of fixing the "surprise" factor that occurs when application/library function (and data, shudder) names intersect unexpectedly. Originally, we did not have the linker technology to do this w/o synonyms; the enhancements made to the linker(s) in the intervening years (and the massive cleanups of ON by Roger, Rod, and others) now allows us to use direct binding to address this problem. This is critical for long-term stability of dynamic library interfaces; as we move to a more asynchronous software delivery model & mechanism, removing the chance of accidental interposition after the fact is even more critical. I'm wondering if we should be changing some default linking behaviors when building shared libraries... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
