[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FFI on OS X?
From: |
Hans Aberg |
Subject: |
Re: FFI on OS X? |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:34:06 +0100 |
On 3 Mar 2011, at 11:40, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> The crux is that on older MacOS X versions ‘.dylib’ are shared
>>> libraries (not dlopenable), whereas ‘.so’ are “bundles”
>>> (dlopenable). That’s why lt_dlopenext (which is what ‘dynamic-link’
>>> uses) doesn’t try to open ‘.dylib’ files.
>>
>> The shared libraries (not dynamically loadable, except as when
>> starting up the program like some web browser plugins) were on the PPC
>> platform (XCOFF and PEF I think it was).
>>
>> Now (Mac OS 10.5 and later), all is loadable. Haven't seen any .so
>> files, except as coming from GNU/Linux.
>
> I would recommend discussing this with the Libtool folks, to see how
> ltdl could adapt to the new situation.
I recommend that too. - I brought it up a year ago, so if somebody wants to
give it another take, please feel free to do it. :-)
> But keep in mind that ltdl
> should still do the right thing on those older versions of OS X
> described above.
That might be Mac OS X 10.4 or older; 10.5 and later on PPC cannot run Mac OS 9.
I have a vague memory that a year ago, some still ran Mac OS 10.4.
> Perhaps lt_dlopenext could look for .dylib files if and only if it’s on
> one of these newer OS X versions. If you can tell Libtool people how
> exactly ltdl can determine whether .dylib can be dlopened or not, then
> you’re all set.
Apparently not.
>> UNIX, and the only parts in the UNIX standard recognizing file name
>
> “UNIX standard”, what a funny phrase! :-)
Do you like "Single UNIX Specification" better?
Re: FFI on OS X?, Andreas Rottmann, 2011/03/02
- Re: FFI on OS X?, Hans Aberg, 2011/03/03
- Re: FFI on OS X?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/03/03
- Re: FFI on OS X?, Andreas Rottmann, 2011/03/03
- Re: FFI on OS X?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/03/03
- Re: FFI on OS X?, Andy Wingo, 2011/03/09