On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:34:20PM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> For chrissakes could you _please_ look before sprouting off about the
> reasons for why we do symbol renaming?  ~Half the symbol renames we have
> are _not_ for kernel ABI changes.
> 
>  -  5 to fix some posix braindeadness.
>  - 18 for userland-based libc routines
>  -  4 set/longjmp related (no idea why)
>  - 19 kernel related (signals, sysv shm/sem/msg, stat, vfork)
>  -  5 for signal names additions

I'm curious. How much "cruft" do we have in libc? Is 1% of libc cruft?
Or is it 10%? 25%? What's the lines-of-code count of cruft?
-- 
Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
      'Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate.  
 It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" 
 to the community.' -- RFC 1591, page 4: March 1994