[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: close vs socket vs getline
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: close vs socket vs getline |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:52:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:
>> Some ideas:
>>
>> 1) Should the sockets.m4 module unconditionally add LIBSOCKET to LDADD?
>>
>> 2) Should the gnulib-tool generated Makefile.am add LIBSOCKET to LDADD?
>
> No, LDADD has an effect on all executables. I don't want to link all my
> programs against -lws2_32 just because one of them uses sockets.
>
> No, I don't want to add LIBSOCKET to the link dependencies of the 'close'
> and 'fclose' either. It would also have the effect that all or nearly my
> programs would link against -lws2_32.
>
> Dynamic loading of ws2_32,dll is not the solution either; it would still
> have the effect of loading an extra library in programs that don't need it.
Right.
>> Is there any other options?
>
> I propose to move the sockets related part of close() into the 'sockets'
> module, and connect the close() code with the sockets related code at runtime
> rather than at compile time. Like this (tested on mingw).
Nice idea! It adds some complexity, but it makes the other code easier
to understand once you have understood close-hook.
I have tested it, and it seems to work for me on mingw and normal x86,
and solves the problem. Please push it.
/Simon