Re: Standard libc (Was: Re: Sorry)
> OK, I realize that I'm not on the 'official' committee or whatever, but I
Who cares. This is Linux.
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
Alan
Reply to: