Re: Included Interfaces without documentation update
Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >
> > Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
> >
> > > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > > > > > _IO_feof
> > > > > > Mangle for feof
> > > > > > > _IO_getc
> > > > > > Mangle for getc
> > > > > > > _IO_putc
> > > > > > Mangle for putc
> > > > > > > _IO_puts
> > > > > > Mangle for puts
> > > > >
> > > > > That's interesting. I had no idea there were versions of feof etc.
> > > > > with C++ linkage in the standard libraries. What standard specifies that?
> > > >
> > > > No standard - that's the way glibc implements them. Since LSB is not
> > > > going to change glibc, we have to document these.
> > >
> > > Does it also export them with C linkage, then?
> >
> > Definitly - we describe a C ABI here.
>
> That's what I thought. Then why are we also describing the mangled
> names? Seems like a bug to specify C++ mangled names for C library
> functions.
Stuart has run with appcheck some tests and noticed that some
programs, most probably C++ applications or libs, needed these, for
example:
$ nm /usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so |grep putc
U _IO_putc@@GLIBC_2.0
Since LSB supports C++, we have to add those symbols,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj
Reply to: