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

[Jeff Licquia]

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.