[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ltdl sillyness
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: ltdl sillyness |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:17:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 06:52:00AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >Does a simple test expose this on Tru64? Try something like adding a
> >call to mdemo-exec that tries
> > ( cd mdemo && ./mdemo foo1.la libfoo2.la )
> >(i.e., without path) and if this exposes it, please commit along with
> >it. (It doesn't expose it on GNU/Linux.)
>
> No, if the dlopen() call fails on a file thta exists, it drops through to
> here. I'll come up with something to test it at the weekend.
Hacky test, exposes on systems where LTDL_DLOPEN_DEPLIBS is defined:
sed 's,foo1,foo2' foo1.la >foo2.la
./mdemo ./foo2.la # file not found error
./mdemo foo2.la # assertion
Testing this worked with faking by defining LTDL_DLOPEN_DEPLIBS in
config.h, on GNU/Linux, as well. (I don't think you need to do this
in the test, since testing the other issue won't work here.)
Cheers,
Ralf