On 2/1/06, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it intentional that these functions have global visibility and > > interfere with functions declared and implemented by the system > > libraries? If not, can they be compilied with hidden visibility? > > Yes (I originally tried to "see what happens if we use the glibc > routines", then I shared the code with Richard who did the configury and > the back-end patches. glibc people do not try to make life easy for > people that use their code outside glibc, but I forgot to tell him about > this...).
Ok, so Darwin does not support symbol versioning? As then all these conflicting symbols should be local. Originally Paolo added #pragma visibility stuff which I removed during getting rid of all the C wrapper files. I wonder if we can do some clever stuff with just using default hidden for all files and appending an visibility attribute to the name defines. I can work on this, but I didn't see any difference in exported symbols if using it or not (probably due to the used linker script). Richard.
