This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: FR-V PLT audit

From: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
Cc: libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:49:41 -0800
Subject: Re: FR-V PLT audit
References: <20050210075139.GD4296@twiddle.net> <200502100903.j1A93Mos031618@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:03:22AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> That's not the concern.  The concern is that one could try to compile an
> audit library on a different platform and have it seem like it's ok because
> the signature happens to match, but in fact the audit library's
> pltenter/pltexit functions have not been ported properly to the machine you
> are compiling for.  Since those implementations are always
> machine-specific, having the API distinguish the machine in the names makes
> sure you have considered the target machine specifically.

Given that any non-trivial audit library will be looking at the 
arguments, and the structure member names are different for each
platform, what do you think the odds are that the library will
compile when configured incorrectly?

I'm thinking pretty low, myself.

r~

References:
- Re: FR-V PLT audit
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: FR-V PLT audit
  - From: Roland McGrath

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]