Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: portability
Summary: library function names
Message-ID: <10019@diamond.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 27 Jan 89 02:10:10 GMT
References: <16573@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <9419@smoke.BRL.MIL> <86097@sun.uucp> <23254@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 33

In article <877@auspex.UUCP>, guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
> > What I think AT&T plans to do for S5R4, for example, is to *rename*
> > the "write" routine "_write", and have a mechanism by which the
> > linker will let "_write" satisfy unresolved references for "write"
> > (or something like that);

In article <23254@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
> It seems to me that every implementor of a library other than
> the Standard C library is going to need a means of having
> alternate names for its functions (unless none of them call
> each other).  If not, it means that for anyone using part of
> a large library all the identifiers in the library become
> reserved words that he must be aware of.
> 
> Thus, unless one wants to have library source that look like:
>     write(args) { return __write(args); }
>     __write(args) { implementation of normal write function }

#if defined (mylib_requested) || defined (__mylib_requested)
#define mylib_reserved_name __mylib_reserved_name
#endif
__mylib_reserved_name(args) { ... }

      [ #ifdef inews_sucks ]
      [ filler line        ]
      [ filler line        ]
      [ filler line        ]
      [ filler line        ]
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?