| To: | <wollman+austin-group@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Schwarz, Konrad" <konrad.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem |
| From: | "Wojtek Lerch" <Wojtek@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:41:02 -0400 |
| Cc: | <austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <e26e5335cda9d0dfe49395e6115066fe@austingroupbugs.net><1730938080F74546ACC51CB65BA00565@ott.qnx.com><20090702094404.GA28393@squonk.masqnet><4A4CC239.2040603@qnx.com><5030E566C603DA449D6B4C060CE529B73A8F37@MCHP7RDA.ww002.siemens.net><4A4D2366.9090904@qnx.com><5030E566C603DA449D6B4C060CE529B73A8FF1@MCHP7RDA.ww002.siemens.net> <19022.23792.699537.351052@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> |
| Thread-index: | Acn8FWO8j2vMOIcDTZC7tIjP1hKmDgAhqHQw |
| Thread-topic: | [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem |
> From: wollman+austin-group@lcs.mit.edu > After all this, wouldn't it simply be easier to define a new dlfunc() > interface? There is prior art. Easier to define, probably. But it wouldn't make life easier for implementors, especially those ones who already have the old dlsym() but not the new dlfunc() in their implementations, would it? |
| Previous by Date: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000074]: Pointer Types Problem, Wojtek Lerch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |