SV: [GD-General] multiply defined functions in libs

[Stefan B. <Ste...@di...>]

  Well, on unix-y linkers, the linker picks the first object module it =
finds a symbol in so the order in which you specify your libraries on =
the linker command line determines which one will be used.
=20
  The only really safe way to be really really sure that only your =
memory allocators get linked in is to remove all memory allocation =
functions from libc though, since there are several "secret" allocation =
functions that might get called from within other libc code (malloc_r =
etc). Personally I found the GNU LD wrapping options (I think it's =
'--wrap-xxxxx') very useful for stuff like memory tracking.
=20
  As for a general solution which fits all toolsets and platforms, I =
don't believe one exists since it's so dependent on the linker/runtime =
model.
=20
/Stefan

________________________________

Fr=E5n: gam...@li... genom Brett =
Bibby
Skickat: on 2004-06-09 05:58
Till: Gam...@li...
=C4mne: [GD-General] multiply defined functions in libs



I have no idea where to ask this quesiton, so I guess general might be =
okay.

Recently I have switched our memory management to Doug Lea's malloc and =
so
far so good.  The biggest problem is that I'm trying to drop in and =
replace
the normal ansi calls.  This generally works although with different =
side
effects on different platforms.  For example, CodeWarrior's linker emits =
a
warning that multiple "malloc" symbols are defined on Win32, but =
correctly
chooses to use mine anyway if I set the link order correctly, and emits =
no
warnings at all on PS2 and GCN and seems to use mine silently (although =
the
original malloc is listed in the linker map, just unused!).  On MSVC it =
is
an error and won't build the Win32 version.  Since we have 18 target =
builds
across mutliple platforms this is messy.  I can't remove the offending
libraries without also removing a bunch of needed functions as they are
built into a single library.

Is there any sort of pragma or some other way to make sure that all
references to memory management functions only see my definition?  It =
seems
that many people must have done this before....

If not, the only way I see to fix this properly is to build custom =
release
and debug libs from each platform's source and exclude the functions I =
want
to remove <shudder>.

Brett



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: GNOME Foundation
Hackers Unite!  GUADEC: The world's #1 Open Source Desktop Event.
GNOME Users and Developers European Conference, 28-30th June in Norway
http://2004/guadec.org
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=3D557