Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>> On 04/28/09 14:27, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>>> well, Win32 is only one platform, and experience tells that in
>>>> general, c++ extension *do* break between releases. But you're
>>>> right, that's not necessarily caused by ABI changes in the strict
>>>> meaning of the word, a case in point is the 3 layer OOo rework.
>>> Hu?
>>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=24706
>> and
>> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=24718
>> for example.
>
> Maybe I am dumb, but I do not find any mention of broken C++ OOo  
> extensions in those two mails.
>
Hi Stephan,

oh, I was under the impression the author is referring to c++ - so
then, it's Java? Should we add Java to the list of fragile
extension implementations as well? ;)

>> And of course with symbol interposing on elf-based platforms, you
>> get all the fun if someone injects names into the OOo process that
>> are normally bound to e.g. another version of a shipped external
>> lib...
>
> I do not see how that would relate to the topic of this thread.
>
Sorry for not being clear - symbol interposing makes it even harder
to maintain compatibility for c++ extensions, due to the mutual
influence the OOo baseline & extensions have on symbol resolution
(i.e. a dso already in the lookup scope when an extension is loaded
can mess with the extension; conversely, with OOo dlopening uno
components using RTLD_GLOBAL, the extension's dependencies can mess 
with OOo).

Although I'd think symbol versioning is supposed to solve this
problem, there are apparently enough corner cases (or
badly-versioned libs) out there that it fails:
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=23388

(I also remember problems with different versions of the freetype
lib, but cannot find any reference currently)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org

Reply via email to