This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fwd: [PATCH] tdestroy() should allow passing 'NULL' for 'freefct' callback
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Ondřej Bílka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Ivo Raisr <ivosh at ivosh dot net>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:37:48 +0530
- Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] tdestroy() should allow passing 'NULL' for 'freefct' callback
- References: <CANXv6=sw64PRodqTgArqUHQLTcQd8eEE_==6QHVHgLn52jh=1Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130611081615 dot GA6224 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CANXv6=vaJwfOKGgNWU55j-xdB5zqhp5_-3tdjS287+UR1r-nDA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CANXv6=sKC3wsF5ZN9So9Pq=BAfcwvveNZHaSvWEZL5KceH+goQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130625213231 dot E552A2C08A at topped-with-meat dot com> <51CAD729 dot 1080205 at redhat dot com>
On 26 June 2013 17:27, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> Versioning is an interesting point I hadn't considered. In the past I'd
> say we haven't always done this kind of bumping of the symbol version
> to ensure considerate error messages. Though I agree with you, bumping
> the symbol version is the right thing to do here.
Why do we need a new symbol version for this? The new behaviour is
backward compatible, so the only thing it adds is the ability to pass
a NULL callback to tdestroy, which would result in a segfault earlier.
I doubt if any application does something as silly as passing a NULL
callback to catch the crash in a SIGSEGV handler to do something
special.
Siddhesh
--
http://siddhesh.in