Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!xmission!nnrp.xmission!.POSTED.shell.xmission.com!not-for-mail
From: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: (interposers): How to workaround the "strong symbols" problem?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID: <vmjsum$36htc$1@news.xmission.com>
References: <vmeibp$33sam$1@news.xmission.com> <wwvsepessby.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <vmjbpc$369bd$1@news.xmission.com> <vmjq8b$2clu1$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:05:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.xmission.com; posting-host="shell.xmission.com:166.70.8.4";
	logging-data="3360684"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@xmission.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Bytes: 1749
Lines: 19

In article <vmjq8b$2clu1$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net>,
Marcel Mueller  <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> wrote:
>Am 19.01.25 um 18:12 schrieb Kenny McCormack:
>> What you are calling "sense #2" (i.e., the "glibc wrapper" that is provided
>> for most (not all) syscalls) is just another function and can, of course,
>> be interposed.
>
>Not necessarily.
>The header files might contain information that tells the compiler to 
>inline the wrapper when possible. In this case it won't succeed either.

In that case, it's not a wrapper, now is it?

We're just arguing over definitions at this point.

-- 
1) The only professionals who refer to their customers as "users" are
    computer guys and drug dealers.
2) The only professionals who refer to their customers as "clients" are
    lawyers and prostitutes.