gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (04/22/86)
In article <276@usc-oberon.UUCP>, blarson@usc-oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) writes: > In article <2528@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.ARPA writes: > > The only > >relatively safe redefinition would be one with a standard- > >conforming interface, but then why not just use the one > >provided? > > > Perhaps because library authors arn't always perfect, or just for > performance. (Is your strcmp optimised for 10Mbyte strings?) Most of the time when I try this, it doesn't work though, due to the "1 source file = 1 loadable module" semantics of Unix linkers. If I try to replace one routine with a non-buggy version, I end up having to replace the whole source file, containing some large number of routines that I might not even have source for. What does the ANSI C standard say about this? -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa