Hi Chuck, [Warning: thread hijack - please start a new thread and paste in any context you need if you care to reply further.]
On 25 Jun 2010, at 06:23, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 6/17/2010 4:54 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> Well, this is what I ended up with, it does not change the currently >> documented saving of error messages until lt_dlerror() is called, it >> copies the error message to ensure that we don't return garbage when >> lt_dlerror is called. I think I also got all the places where we were >> setting file not found. >> >> Still, I am not overjoyed with this. > > I'm sorry I sidetracked this thread, with the discussion on *using* this > patch to track down an error in an different part of libltdl on cygwin. > > But... > > I think this patch is a decent, incremental approach to fixing the error > reporting in libltdl. Unless somebody else is working on something > better in secret, I think this version ought to be pushed. Agreed. As an aside, I *am* working on something "in secret" actually. I finally gave up trying to fully grok the spaghetti code at the core of libltdl, and with all the lessons I learned in teasing out the other parts of it between 1.5.x and 2.2.x, I am in the early stages of a complete rewrite. I have spent so many hours staring at the original code that I'm now of the opinion that I can put out a cleaner, more stable, ground up rewrite in less time than it would take to bring the incumbent implementation any closer to sanity than what we already have. A ton of smart talented programmers have been defeated by the error reporting of the current code base alone: Here we are 8 years down the line... and *still* we don't have it working quite right. If I'd started this rewrite a year or two ago, we'd have something better by now already, so any effort I would otherwise be investing in the current libltdl tree goes to the rewrite instead. However. with this rewrite, something useable is a long way off yet. I'm still on the fence regarding whether dlfcn.h is even a good starting point for the API... any nuggets of wisdom or insight would be appreciated more at this point than they will when I post a draft implementation in several months. More here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2010-06/msg00057.html Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)