Re: [RFC] pre-c89 in libltdl

[Simon Josefsson]

Albert Chin <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> If POSIX dlopen are indeed thread safe, I think I will use them
>> directly, instead of libltdl, without surrounding the calls with
>> thread mutexes, and document that my package require POSIX/threadsafe
>> dlopen.  To check if the system have POSIX dlopen, I could check for
>> the function itself, and that _POSIX_VERSION >= 200112L.
>
> What about systems like HP-UX which don't have dlopen() (or require a
> patch to get it)?

Is their interface thread-safe?  If not, then I don't want to support
it, since it would cause problems for applications using my library.
All modules would simply be compiled into the shared library, which is
how it works anyway.  If it is thread-safe, I could use a dlopen
abstraction like libltdl, but restrict the abstraction to only work
with known thread-safe dlopen interfaces.  (I could probably use
libltdl directly, without specifying locking functions, if I made sure
to only use it on systems with known thread safe dlopen.)