On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:17:02PM +0000, Will Newton wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 4:06 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:58:00PM +0000, Will Newton wrote: > > > Agreed, my question is whether or not adding the underscore is the > > > correct thing to do even if your architecture prepends an underscore > > > to symbol names? Is there a particular reason why this was done for > > > Blackfin, to make a particular app work? I am trying to find out what > > > the correct behaviour of dlsym is, for example does it behave like > > > this on other Unixes that have leading underscores on symbols. > > > > There are pretty much no Unixes that do this; a few embedded Linux > > ports are the only exceptions I've ever encountered. > > I think I got the impression from the Levine "Linkers and Loaders" > book (my copy of which seems to have vanished) that prepending an > underscore to symbol names was common practice. Perhaps it was an > a.out thing, that's rather before my time though...
Not on modern Unixes, anyway. Some *-elf targets do, and more *-coff and *-aout targets. As I understand it, the only reasons are habit and to accomodate an assembler syntax which makes symbol names ambiguous with something else (e.g. register names). If it's a habit, expect everyone to have the habit; if it's to accomodate the assembler, expect everyone to accomodate the assembler. So there shouldn't be any symbols without the underscore. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc