Re: namespace pollution? clone()

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:45:23PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> Shouldn't we expose __clone(2) (the real symbol in the reserved
> namespace) under _NETBSD_SOURCE and only hide clone(2) weak alias
> under _GNU_SOURCE?  You kinda sidestep some potential issues here in
> this case b/c __clone is an assembler syscall stub, so there's no C
> source that implements __close() that has to see the declaration.

I don't understand the problem you see here - please fix it as you
find appropriate.

Thanks,
 Thomas