Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:17:38AM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Kean Johnston wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:06:35AM CET: > > > >>>instead. Bug in dlopen/dlerror? > >> > >>Yes I suspect it must be. I guess in a sense it shows how obscure > >>the case of testing for being able todlopen yourself if you are > >>linked statically is :) So perhaps a more pertinent question is, > >>why is libtool checking for it and does it matter any more?
Another data point: linking only statically against libdl.a, but shared against libc evokes the same link warning, but actually works (just as the warning suggests). > >Good question. > > libltdl explicitly allows dlopening self, and supports it even in > statically linked binaries. The configure time test allows libltdl > to implement the functionality using native dlopen self if that > works, and fallback to preopening (using a statically linked > symbol_name:symbol_address map) when it fails. OK, good. > If the test is broken atm, then I guess we are always falling back > to the preopen mechanism :-( Weirdly though, the breakage caused the test to succeed. Cheers, Ralf
