Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Robert Collins" <lifeless AT bigpond DOT net DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Duplicates between cygwin1.dll and libc.a.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:23:56 +1000
Message-ID: <000001c2070b$b4ce7860$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2002 12:23:57.0278 (UTC) FILETIME=[B46B97E0:01C2070B]

The following functions (at a minimum):

`malloc':
`free':
`realloc':
`strerror':
`setenv':
`unsetenv':
`getenv':

Are defined in both the libc source and the cygwin source. Which one is
exposed for user programs to link against, and is the second one 
A) used by cygwin internally
B) not used in the cygwin environment at all
?

The libc code all seem to be the same - they call the _foo_r version of
the same function, and there are no obvious duplicates there. I'm still
working on profiling, for those who are interested.

Rob