[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:31:17 -0500 (CDT)
User-agent: Alpine 2.01 (GSO 1266 2009-07-14)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:

Sure, that's probably right.  However it's tough to tell.  You could
look for "\.so(\.|$)" or something.  But that's encoding lots of

I think that uses of dlopenext are already oblivious to `stat' calls,
because they sanction looking for .la files before e.g. .so files, so
it's not a problem to just do what the doc says: bare path first, then
grovel extensions.

Use of .la files does not incur more stat calls unless the .la file is not present. Using .la files is really a better solution than what you are trying to do. The .la file format is just simple text so guile could construct its own .la files (or rename/link-to existing .la files) to load versioned libraries in a particular way.

Clearly libltdl is not matching its documentation and what you requested to do should have worked. Always keep in mind that there is a cost in terms of performance and security whenever libltdl looks in another place.

Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]