"Roger A. Faulkner" <Roger.Faulkner at sun.com> wrote:
....
> ==============================================================
> The better solution
>
> So much for history. Now for today's situation.
>
> The change for this bug report was recently integrated
> into /ws/onnv-gate:
>
> 4947191 OSNet should use direct bindings
>
> This causes all OS/NET libraries, including libc, to be built
> using direct binding (-B direct). As a result, all symbols
> referenced by a library are bound either to the definition
> within itself or to the definition within its direct dependencies.
>From my understanding, this would prevent applications to replace "malloc"
that are based on brk(2)/sbrk(2).
libc currently binds to the malloc()/.... functions from the application.
Binding to libc internal functions is currently only done for those functions
that need to be the way libc defines them.
Using a "direct" binding to all libc functions looks to me like ignoring
linking rules.
if you are sure that this change would not cause any problems please explain in
more details.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
