Sujet : Re: (interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?
De : gazelle (at) *nospam* shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Groupes : comp.unix.programmerDate : 19. Jan 2025, 23:05:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID : <vmjsum$36htc$1@news.xmission.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
In article <
vmjq8b$2clu1$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>,
Marcel Mueller <
news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> wrote:
Am 19.01.25 um 18:12 schrieb Kenny McCormack:
What you are calling "sense #2" (i.e., the "glibc wrapper" that is provided
for most (not all) syscalls) is just another function and can, of course,
be interposed.
>
Not necessarily.
The header files might contain information that tells the compiler to
inline the wrapper when possible. In this case it won't succeed either.
In that case, it's not a wrapper, now is it?
We're just arguing over definitions at this point.
-- 1) The only professionals who refer to their customers as "users" are computer guys and drug dealers.2) The only professionals who refer to their customers as "clients" are lawyers and prostitutes.
(interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?
Re: (interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?