Re: [xml] Probably should not look for/use shl_load if dlopen is found (2.6.17)
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:51:22AM -0800, Rick Jones wrote: On some HP-UX systems, both dlopen and shl_load are present. The 2.6.17 configure script seems to look for both of them and then xmlmodule.c does not prefer one over the other. When both shl_load and dlopen are present, we get duplicate definitions of the routines and that makes the compiler rather unhappy :) I'm not sure which would be better - only have configure look for shl_load if it does not find dlopen, or modify the #ifdefs in xmlmodule.c such that the shl_load stuff is nested in an #else from the HAVE_DLOPEN. This patch does the latter - as much because I didn't have autoconf installed on the HP-UX system as anything else :) # diff -c xmlmodule.c.orig xmlmodule.c okay, makes sense. I made the changes, thanks ! BTW patches are better sent as mail attachments so they don't get messed up by the transport layers. thanks Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ ___ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
Re: [xml] Probably should not look for/use shl_load if dlopen is found (2.6.17)
# diff -c xmlmodule.c.orig xmlmodule.c okay, makes sense. I made the changes, thanks ! BTW patches are better sent as mail attachments so they don't get messed up by the transport layers. (BTW, I changed my subcription to [EMAIL PROTECTED] from [EMAIL PROTECTED], so the approval stuff should no longer be an issue - noticed it when I saw the delays.) Inline vs attachements - every project seems to go differently there :( Some lists strip attachments, hard to keep it striaght which is which. All thanks to that OS that can't seem to ever shake a cold (virus)... sigh. I'll try to remember to do attachments in the future. So, with those patches I get clean compiles for both 32 and 64-bit 11.11 and 11.23 IPF. I can though generate beaucoup warnings if I enable all warnings and migration (32 to 64-bit) warnings. The bulk of them seem harmless (having waded through them briefly) and some look like the compiler being overly paranoid, but some may be of interest. Would you like to see the entire list (as an attachment of course :)? rick jones ___ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
