RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-12 Thread Jason Evans
The buildworld problem that I introduced is due to cc_fbsd directly compiling and linking in src/lib/libc/stdio/mktemp.c. This is in my opinion a questionable practice, since it adds dependencies to the internals of the libc code, which has just been proven to bite. =) Aesthetics aside, I'm not

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-12 Thread John Polstra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The buildworld problem that I introduced is due to cc_fbsd directly > compiling and linking in src/lib/libc/stdio/mktemp.c. This is in my > opinion a questionable practice, since it adds dependencies to the > internals of t

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 07:00:01PM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > > The buildworld problem that I introduced is due to cc_fbsd directly > > compiling and linking in src/lib/libc/stdio/mktemp.c. This is in my > > opinion a questionable practice, since it adds dependencies to the > > internals of the

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-13 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 07:00:01PM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > > > The buildworld problem that I introduced is due to cc_fbsd directly > > > compiling and linking in src/lib/libc/stdio/mktemp.c. This is in my > > > opinion a questionable practice, sin

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-13 Thread John Polstra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 07:00:01PM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > > > I _really_ don't like it when a program reaches waaay over into an > > unrelated directory for its sources. > > We already do that all over the place

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-14 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, John Polstra wrote: > Jason Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2) Make a separate copy of mktemp.c to remove the internal dependency. > > I think this is the best approach -- likewise for getobjformat.c, I agree. egcs provided "mkstemp.c" to handle the problem, but t

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > I don't see why a plain function like mkstemp() should be written so > > specially. Couldn't all the hiding/changing done for threads be done > > w/in open() itself? Neither HP-UX 10.3

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Jason Evans
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 01:36:43AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 06:53:25AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > > I don't see why a plain function like mkstemp() should be written so > > > specially. Couldn't all the hiding/changi

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Daniel Eischen
> No, I was just busy doing other things. > > There is potentially one good reason to leave these changes in place for > now: they allow proper thread cancellation in libc_r as it stands right > now. This seems to me like a good enough reason to leave the changes as is > until our grand new thre

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Jason Evans
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:21:50PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > No, I was just busy doing other things. > > > > There is potentially one good reason to leave these changes in place for > > now: they allow proper thread cancellation in libc_r as it stands right > > now. This seems to me like

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Jason Evans wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:21:50PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > I guess I'm confused as to why you can't do what you need with > > _XXX (internally used, non-cancellable function) and XXX (weak > > reference to _XXX) within libc. libc_r would provide

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Daniel Eischen
Jason Evans wrote: > Doen't that method still have the problem of propagating cancellation > points within the libc code? In another email I argued for the need for > three names, and your response was that three names aren't needed in the > context of the next-generation threads library, but it

Re: RFC: buildworld breakage due to cross-tools/libc/mktemp.

2000-01-19 Thread Daniel Eischen
> What we had before the _libc_XXX name additions would have worked > as long as all internal uses of XXX inside libc were changed to > _XXX, and, when building for libc_r, all renamed (hidden) system > calls need _XXX defined as weak symbols to _thread_sys_XXX. Actually, you don't even need to d