[lsb-discuss] LSB interface addition discussion
robert.schweikert at mathworks.com
Mon Jun 9 05:40:36 PDT 2008
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> 1664: ptrace
> 1739: dl_iterate_phdr
Mostly useful for debugging purposes, unfortunately this is needed.
> 1751: dlinfo
> 1957: XextAddDisplay, XextFindDisplay, XextRemoveDisplay,
> XextCreateExtension, XextDestroyExtension,
We should consider all missing Xext interfaces.
> 1995: strverscmp
Interestingly Google finds that we deprecated this interface in LSB
2.1.0. Is there an alternative interface? WHo is using the interface?
> 1997: alphasort, alphasort64, scandir, scandir64
> 2078: gnu_get_libc_release
Is this really needed? An LSB compliant app is more or less tied to a
specific version of glibc.
> 2128: __getdelim (see general question below)
Can we find better ways to deal with the double underscore symbols?
> 2133: sendfile, sendfile64
> 2137: epoll_create, epoll_ctl, epoll_wait
> 2142: remap_file_pages
> 2143: getifaddrs / freeifaddrs
> 2153: getservent_r, getservbyname_r, getservbyport_r
> 2154: getprotoent_r, getprotobyname_r, getprotobynumber_r
> 2155: hcreate_r, hdestroy_r, hsearch_r
> 2158: data (not functions) __progname_full, __progname,
> program_invocation_name, program_invocation_short_name
> 2161: getgrent_r, getpwent_r, fgetgrent, fgetpwent,
> fgetpwent_r, fgetgrent_r
> 2162: argz_add, argz_add_sep, argz_append, argz_count,
> argz_create, argz_create_sep, argz_delete,
> argz_extract, argz_insert, argz_next, argz_replace,
> 2163: sysinfo, get_nprocs_conf, get_nprocs
These should definitely be in the LSB
> 2168: mempcpy, wmempcpy
> Comment #1: none of these interfaces are in POSIX. This
> does mean we would have to produce documentation (and, of
> course tests). also, any non-POSIX interface should be
> considered for possible impacts on any non-glibc and/or
> non-Linux situation, weighed against usefulness and how
> widely used they are.
> Comment #2: I think the re-entrant set (2153, 2154, 2155
> plus most of 2161) should be pretty non-controversial,
> excepting the issue from #1.
> Comment #3: as a general case, there are a LOT of interfaces
> that begin with double underscores in glibc. Many of these
> are not intended to be /directly/ called by applications, but
> macros, optimizations, and other tricks may well cause them
> to appear in the compiled (non-LSB) binary. In general we've
> tried to keep these out of the API ("source standard") and
> in some cases have had to bring them into the ABI ("binary
> standard"). It's becoming hard to determine whether the
> absence of these symbols is a problem or not; it does make
> data analysis harder. It's also a question of whether we
> have some in that aren't needed. 2128, for example, brings
> this issue forward. We're looking for a discussion and
> general decision on this.
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(robert.schweikert at mathworks.com) LINUX
The MathWorks Inc.
Phone : 508-647-2042
More information about the lsb-discuss