Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

On Thu 31 Mar 2011 03:31, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>
>> Sure, that's probably right.  However it's tough to tell.  You could
>> look for "\.so(\.|$)" or something.  But that's encoding lots of
>> details.
>>
>> I think that uses of dlopenext are already oblivious to `stat' calls,
>> because they sanction looking for .la files before e.g. .so files, so
>> it's not a problem to just do what the doc says: bare path first, then
>> grovel extensions.
>
> Use of .la files does not incur more stat calls unless the .la file is
> not present.  Using .la files is really a better solution than what you
> are trying to do.

That might well be true!  (I don't know enough of the details.)  However
on most systems that does not work for system libraries like libc.  This
particular bug report came from a user who wanted to link against a
library without installing the -dev package on his OS, so he wouldn't
have .la files anyway.  Not to mention distros that don't install .la
files, like Fedora et al.

Just to clarify the use case.  I see we all agree the current behavior
is a bug :)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/