Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:07:44AM CEST: > On 06/11/2010 11:56 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > >1: There might be a better way. I'm thinking... > > I'm not sure what testing that modules cannot be unloaded gets you > when you don't have shared libraries.
That may be true, but the failure was during lt_dlopen. I think it should be possible to preload modules with the resident bit, no? I mean, they are the prototype of resident modules, their closing is what won't do the right thing for non-residents (and maybe a future improvement of the preopen loader could even emulate that). This failure looks like a genuine ltdl bug to me; why not leave it open for now? > >3: eww! > > It's either skip the test entirely or some crap like this, you can't > load a static archive "RTLD_LOCAL", then load a different static > archive with the same symbols later "RTLD_GLOBAL", and expect things > to work. I debated what to do, and decided to do the crap thing, > since it's possible some parts of the test are useful. I don't have a better idea here either; only that something like your paragraph above should be a comment right before the hack, so we don't ask ourselves the same question again next time. FWIW, the other two look good to me to. Thanks! Ralf
