Hi Peter,
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 01:34:04PM CET:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 06:35:43PM CET:
> >>Recently I hacked together a small package in order to demonstrate how
> >>libtool works (using autoconf-2.95, automake-1.9.6, and libtool-1.5.20).
> >
> >Will the demonstration be public? :)
>
> haven't thought about it. All that is such a hack (stupid modules and stupid
> apps doing no more than "Hi, I'm here") but might be useful as demo. If you
> wish I can send the tarball privately to you (R.W. + bug-libtool) but some
> cleanup might be in order to make things public.
Well, if it's more than our mdemo tests, then it'd always be nice to
see.
> >I believe
> > lt_dlopen("mod1.la")
> >would succeed as well.
> > lt_dlopenext("mod1")
> >/should/ succeed, but currently doesn't, as you noted.
> >In fact, it should not need any on-disk files for this.
> >This is a known issue with preloaded modules.
>
> NO.
> lt_dlopen("mod1.la") <= (1)
> and
> lt_dlopenext("mod1") <= (2)
> both fail. Actually (2) fails because (1) fails, since (2) just first tries
> (1) and then
> lt_dlopen("mod1.so")
Ah, ok. It succeeds when the mod1.la file is actually present.
The fact that we currently need the .la file even for dlpreloaded
modules is a known issue. (And this is what I tried to say in the
previous mail, but looking at it again, that wasn't very clear at all).
Yes, that will be fixed eventually, it's just the pile of other stuff
that's more important..
Cheers,
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Bug-libtool mailing list
Bug-libtool@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
