This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? What do we allow interposed symbols to do?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:25:42 -0400
- Subject: Re: Should glibc be fully reentrant? What do we allow interposed symbols to do?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54456FA1 dot 9070804 at redhat dot com> <20141020204153 dot 83C542C3B0D at topped-with-meat dot com> <54457C4C dot 4080307 at redhat dot com> <20141021224739 dot 080382C3AB2 at topped-with-meat dot com> <54486800 dot 4040806 at redhat dot com> <1414143092 dot 18538 dot 8 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
On 10/24/2014 05:31 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> Allow interposed functions to call back into the runtime, and fix any
>> places where this breaks.
>
> As worded, I do not agree. IMHO, this should be opt-in. It may very
> well be that we'd want an opt-in for large sets of functionality, but
> I'd be concerned about promising support for this *in general*.
I concede. You make a good point.
How do we opt-in? Add a new safety annotation? Re-entrant?
Cheers,
Carlos.