[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tests on AIX 5
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: tests on AIX 5 |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:31:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 06:35:30AM CET:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >A test failed because libltdl failed to locate a symbol from within the
> >*main* executable. If libltdl was executed from a shared library or
> >module, I would be quite happy if it failed to locate a symbol from
> >within the *main* executable unless the main executable was explicitly
> >loaded. If it did locate a symbol from the main exectable, then that
> >indicates that symbols from the main executable may be polluting the
> >namespace, which could lead to wrong behavior.
>
> My understanding (and hence likely foundation of undocumented
> assumptions in macros, tests and ltdl code) is that we support two
> configurations -- I'm using the dlopen API to represent whatever
> OS loader libltdl eventually calls out to:
>
> i) dlopen(NULL) returns a pointer:
> this implies the return value is a system lt_dlhandle to the
> main object which can be passed to dlsym() to get the address
> of symbols from the main ``module''.
ACK.
> ii) dlopen(NULL) doesn't return a pointer:
i.e., it returns NULL.
> if the application is linked with -dlopen self, we build a table
> for the preload dlloader so that lt_dlsym will still work
ACK.
> I think it would be good to document that this is only expected to work
> if the code that uses lt_dlopen(NULL) handles for anything is part of
> the application proper (i.e. not a library).
Why? Are there systems where we cannot get this to work?
(Note AIX is *not* one of them. It can dlopen(NULL), one just has to
mark all to-be-exported symbols when linking. We could write stuff to
do this on encountering `-dlopen self').
> Does anybody here expect anything to behave otherwise?
Yes. Maybe it's not a requirement many software packages/libraries
have, and such, we might be aiming for something nobody needs, but:
You can always dlpreopen the main program, right? (I know I am
repeating myself, but I missed an answer to this so far).
> We should write tests to check this too.
Sure.
Regards,
Ralf
- tests on AIX 5, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/15
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/15
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/15
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/16
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/16
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/16
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Daniel Reed, 2004/11/16
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Charles Wilson, 2004/11/17
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/19
- Re: tests on AIX 5,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: tests on AIX 5, Noah Misch, 2004/11/16
- completely static platform (was: tests on AIX 5), Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/17
- Re: completely static platform, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/17
- Re: completely static platform, Jacob Meuser, 2004/11/17
Re: tests on AIX 5, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/17