On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/30/2011 08:54 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > >> On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <david.gilb...@linaro.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> + > >>> +extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int count); > >> > >> Why are we using __write instead of write? > > > > Because plain write is in the user's namespace in ISO C. See what I said > > in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00084.html> - the > > alternative is hardcoding the syscall number and using the syscall > > directly. > > That would be better, no? Unless __write is part of the glibc API, > which AFAIK it isn't.
It's exported at version GLIBC_2.0 (not GLIBC_PRIVATE) under the comment "functions used in inline functions or macros", although I don't actually see any such functions or macros in current glibc headers. I think being under a public version means you can rely on it staying there. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com