Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!amdahl!proper!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Redefining C Builtin Functions
Message-ID: <725@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Mon, 21-Apr-86 23:19:19 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.725
Posted: Mon Apr 21 23:19:19 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Apr-86 22:59:28 EST
References: <2524@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2528@brl-smoke.ARPA> <276@usc-oberon.UUCP>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 19

In article <276@usc-oberon.UUCP>, blarson@usc-oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) writes:
> In article <2528@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.ARPA writes:
> >                                               The only
> >relatively safe redefinition would be one with a standard-
> >conforming interface, but then why not just use the one
> >provided?
> >
> Perhaps because library authors arn't always perfect, or just for
> performance.  (Is your strcmp optimised for 10Mbyte strings?)

Most of the time when I try this, it doesn't work though, due to the
"1 source file = 1 loadable module" semantics of Unix linkers.
If I try to replace one routine with a non-buggy version, I end 
up having to replace the whole source file, containing some large
number of routines that I might not even have source for.

What does the ANSI C standard say about this?
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa