On 10/3/23 04:17, Frederic Thevenet wrote:
Hi David,
On 03/10/2023 04:49, David Holmes wrote:
Is there a reason we couldn't rename the dll's so that they do infact
have a prefix e..g libjava.dll? I would presume the linker
information would store the actual name.
Changing the names of the libraries would of course be an alternative
way to accomplish the same result, but I strongly suspect it could
have far more unexpected side-effects than changing the names for the
symbols. In particular, I'm thinking of applications that might
explicitly looking for the presence of a file named "java.dll" to
determine if a Java runtime is present.
I suspect this is a lot more common than programs expecting symbols
explicitly named "java.pdb" (though of course I can't rule out the
possibility that there are). Overall, it seems to me a much riskier
approach.
I agree. Changing the names of our dll's is likely to be quite
disruptive. I think the proposed renaming scheme of the pdb files is an
elegant and simple enough solution.
/Erik
