[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: molehill ----> mountain

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: molehill ----> mountain
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:19:59 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Gary V.Vaughan wrote:
> Pop quiz:  libltdl is a client of xmalloc from libltdl/xalloc.c, and
> libm4
> is a client of gnulib/xmalloc.c.  Both define xmalloc(), with different
> semantics, but the same prototype. m4 itself links both libraries.  m4.h
> declares gnulib/xmalloc.c's xmalloc, but ltdl.h doesn't declare anything
> from libltdl/xalloc.c.  What happens if m4's main() calls xmalloc()?

Hopefully the linker wouldn't even allow the link to occur due to
duplicate symbols.

> I guess you're saying that execution could end up in either :-(  This is
> exactly what weak symbols are for isn't it?  I imagine they are not
> portable
> enough to be used in libltdl though.  Ack.

Weak symbols are not even usable for static linkage.

If you like looking at 'xmalloc' in the code, create a lt_xmalloc
function and add some defines at the top of ltdl.c to remap xmalloc to

Bob Friesenhahn

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]