[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Standard libc (Was: Re: Sorry)

On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > was just wondering from where you got your list of things that should be
> > > in libc. I haven't had the time to look through it entirely, but I do see
> > 
> > Its generated from the Libc documentation.
> I see now. The stuff in dlfcn.h isn't very well documented (I don't think
> I could find an info page if my life depended on it).

There is a Debian bug report on this issue, if memory serves. In its
current state, using docs to validate code is going to be somewhat iffy.

> > > that you are missing the functions from dlfcn.h (the library for dynamic
> > > loading/unloading of libraries). I admit that I am personally biased
> > > towards these functions (dlopen, dlclose, dlsym, and dlerror) being
> > > included in the standard library set because of a project I am working on,
> > 
> > Fine. Send me a diff for the HTML document for stuff I've missed
> I will do my best. It may take a while, though, as I will try to though
> all of glibc2 by hand. Yech.

Checking your list against an nm of the shared library would be a good way
to find the important holes in the function space. Hopefully the number is
small enough to be researched for the respective header files.

> > > standard, as they are already part of glibc2, and are also part of UNIX98.
> > > IMHO, it is important for a Linux standard to meet and/or exceed the
> > > minimums of UNIX(tm) branding, even if Linux itself never gains official
> > > branding. My $0.02.
> > 
> > The goal is to keep the standard small, but I agree witht he dlopen/dlclose
> > etc). Its an oversight not a decision.
> I agree that it is important to keep the standard small. I have sitting in
> front of me here the 27 pages of system calls that are listed as either
> mandatory or part of a 'Feature Group' for UNIX 98 compliance (listed one
> per line, no descriptions). I think that I should find most of the
> functions listed on UNIX 98 on your list already, though my list doesn't
> specify #defined constants as yours does, so some things may slip by.
> At least the list of commands necessary for UNIX 98 is only 5 pages long.

Is there a URL for this, where we can all look? (Or am I the only one that
doesn't know ;-)


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: