Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Andy Ross wrote:
>> Erik Hofman wrote:
>>
>>>Since FlightGear is linked to libGL at link time, the number of
>>>dlclose calls would always be one less than the number of dlopen
>>>calls.
>> In which case the dlclose() is 100% guaranteed to be a noop anyway
>> and
>> can be safely removed. :)
>> Seriously: consider the case where this symbol came out of a library
>> that we *don't* link to statically.
>
> Why would I?
>
>> Then this would undeniably be a
>> bug, because the library would be unmapped before the function could
>> be called.  Honestly, this code is just wrong.
>
> No it's not. I can't see a case where a program that relies so heavily
> on OpenGL wouldn't link to the GL library at link time.

you are mixing static and dynamic linking. andy is talking about
dynamic linking. i am not sure what you are talking about.

--alex--

-- 
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
|  advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with  |
|  automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion  |
|  and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to