Re: [devel] [Fwd: [(nowhere)] fopen() calls __open]

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:08:46PM +0400, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> Интересная дискуссия по поводу того, как делать "перекрытия" файловых 
> операций для glibc. В свете ближнего и среднего будущего о smbsh и 
> аналогах, похоже, придется забыть. Все же, autofs/automount более 
> грамотный подход.

Это скорее не дискуссия, а FAQ.

> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:43:08 -0700
> From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
> To: Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com
> CC: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: fopen() calls __open()
> Message-ID: <445102AC.5090505@redhat.com>
> References: <vesvx8jj.fsf@oberon-mail.internal> <4450F946.6030909@redhat.com>
> 	<8xprx810.fsf@oberon-mail.internal>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=======-=-="
> 
> --=======-=-=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Derrell.Lipman@UnwiredUniverse.com wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused as to why certain functions are weak and allowed to be
> > overridden (e.g. open, __open)
> 
> Forget about weak.  The is no difference in the treatment of weak and
> strong symbols when they are defined in DSOs.  They are all the same.
> The aspect interesting for you is exported or not.  No internal libc
> call except those to the malloc functions references names which are
> exported.


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]