[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-06-18

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Wed Jun 18 12:19:57 PDT 2008

Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> If there is a need for something called "__getdelim", perhaps you should
> create a public interface called "getdelim"?

That's already been done.

> If the LSB were to produce a specification for __getdelim, the LSB would
> be in violation of POSIX....  Remember that stuff about "symbols beginning
> with `_[_A-Z]' belonging to the implementation".

We already do specify some _ and __ symbols, largely because the 
compiler emits them on our behalf and they must exist for binary 
compatibility.  I think these are usually marked specially so they can't 
be used directly in apps.

Our policy to date has been to avoid specifying these unless absolutely 
necessary; the question was whether that policy should be amended to 
cover strictly unnecessary, but handy, optimizations.

> Even if there is an optimization to be had here, perhaps the implementation
> believes that its not stable?

If they do, they're not showing it by emitting references to it in 
binaries, which is what they're doing with this optimization.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list