[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: loading functions from a shared library

From: William M. Perry
Subject: Re: loading functions from a shared library
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 09:29:44 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.5 (bamboo, i686-pc-linux)

[ Thread about using sysdll.c and sysdll.h from XEmacs for loading shared
  libraries in Emacs .... ]
Dave Love <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> Richard Stallman writes:
>  > It could be that the people who wrote those file signed FSF legal
>  > papers for this code.
> For what it's worth, the basic code I got a couple of years ago was OK
> (ex Bill Perry) but I don't know what's happened to it since.  That code
> would be easy enough to write from scratch anyway, but is basically doing
> the job libtool abstracts.  (I dare say libtool didn't at the time Bill
> started.)

Sorry for the delay in responding - this got buried in the 'to be answered'
folder.  *sigh*

Correct, libtool did not support this type of abstraction at the time.  :)
Nowadays, I would say we should just use the 'ltdl' library that libtool
provides.  It does this and a fair bit more.

>  > The only way to find out if to talk with people who maintained the
>  > code and try to form a complete list of contributers to these files.
> I've sometimes been able to get convincing info out of the XEmacs CVS
> logs in the past, but often not.

The diffs are a better source for this type of thing in some cases.  Diffs
from the 1.1 version in CVS show the only changes were adding the
boilerplate, and some formatting changes along the lines of:

-dll_func dll_function(dll_handle h,CONST char *n) {
-  return(NULL);
+dll_function (dll_handle h, const char *n)
+  return NULL;

But with ltdl being available and easily distributable with Emacs if
someone doesn't have it installed, I would say it is a moot point.

Ceterum censeo vi esse delendam

reply via email to

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