[patch] remove atoff

[Eric Blake]

On 08/26/2011 10:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 06:04 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> You can remove the declarations from headers, so that new apps won't use
>> it, but you may NOT remove the function itself, without breaking shared
>> library clients of newlib like cygwin.
>>
>
> It's impossible for Cygwin to remove very unlikely used symbols from its
> dll?

It's impossible to remove dll entry points without breaking backwards 
compatibility to older apps that are depending on those entry points 
when you keep the old app but upgrade the dll.

Welcome to the life of shared libraries.  Backwards compatibility 
matters.  Deal with it.

>
> Sounds like a serious defect and serious limitation of Cygwin to me.

Which is why we have since learned to not add new dll entry points to 
cygwin without good justification.  We're stuck with the garbage until 
we get to a point where we are okay abandoning backward compatibility 
(which would necessarily require renaming things to cygwin 1.9 or even 
2.1), but we can at least avoid adding new garbage.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org