Hallo Ralf, On 8 Apr 2007, at 18:03, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 12:53:01PM CEST:On 8 Apr 2007, at 01:56, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:Incidentally, I'm don't know whether it would be wiser to go from 2.1aOn Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:to 2.2 when we do release to keep in line with our own version numberingscheme, or whether it will be okay to release 1.9h from HEAD and resetthe number to 1.9i in CVS in readiness for a 2.0 release. Thoughts?I think we should release 2.1b next, then 2.2. 2.1a has been floatingaround a lot, and if we reset it now, then going to 2.1 again later willbe confusing.
Agreed.
Next, please be aware that as important as documentation would be test exposure for the functionality.I have no idea how to write a reliable test for this. I can certainlytest that the API is available,Yes. That's the first test that needs to be done: just simply have a test that calls each new function at least once.
I can do that. If you haven't had time to review before I next work on libtool, I'll add that to the patch and repost.
but since the best semantics I canprovide are "instead of the default symbol visibility request that the underlying dlloader use global or local symbols at load time, iff thatis supported by the host OS and the underlying dlloader implementation".I won't mind if such a test is specific to dlopen for now, or even to GNU/Linux. I can write it if you like.
That would be great! Thanks.
Maybe I should test for the system default, and add a test that tries to change it and succeeds only if lt_dlissym{global,local} fail, or the default symbol visibility is successfully overridden. That's probably more work than the patch itself though!Yuck.
Indeed. Let's skip that then. Phew :-)
Cheers,
Gary
--
())_. Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
( '/ Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
/ )= ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_ Join my AGLOCO Network: http://www.agloco.com/r/BBBS7912
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
