Sujet : Re: (interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?
De : invalid (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (Richard Kettlewell)
Groupes : comp.unix.programmerDate : 20. Jan 2025, 09:44:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : terraraq NNTP server
Message-ID : <wwv5xm9j2lx.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Marcel Mueller <
news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> writes:
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.
Correct; see my earlier post for the real reasons.
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 theory it might, but in reality it doesn’t.
-- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
(interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?
Re: (interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?