Den 2009-12-30 22:22 skrev Bob Friesenhahn:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
Aha, you have misunderstood the patch, that's why we don't understand
each other. The patch does indeed allocate a buffer, that's the whole
point of sending the error message to lt_dladderror. The error message
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
Aha, you have misunderstood the patch, that's why we don't understand
each other. The patch does indeed allocate a buffer, that's the whole
point of sending the error message to lt_dladderror. The error message
is cached indefinitely inside lt_dladderror.
Den 2009-12-30 17:37 skrev Bob Friesenhahn:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
There used to be some useless effort to make it thread safe.
Apparently that is gone now. Regardless, there is also a potential
re-entrancy issue, which could be encountered if a legacy OS
interface is suppo
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
There used to be some useless effort to make it thread safe. Apparently
that is gone now. Regardless, there is also a potential re-entrancy issue,
which could be encountered if a legacy OS interface is supported
(re-implemented) via dlopen() or if some
Den 2009-12-30 06:39 skrev Bob Friesenhahn:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
The thread safety thing can be ignored as libltdl isn't thread safe
and needs to be mutexed anyway. Care to test this patch?
There used to be some useless effort to make it thread safe. Apparently
that is gon
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Peter Rosin wrote:
The thread safety thing can be ignored as libltdl isn't thread safe
and needs to be mutexed anyway. Care to test this patch?
There used to be some useless effort to make it thread safe.
Apparently that is gone now. Regardless, there is also a potential
Den 2009-12-30 01:25 skrev Bob Friesenhahn:
This note in the Solaris manual page for dlerror() is interesting:
NOTES
The messages returned by dlerror() can reside in a static
buffer that is overwritten on each call to dlerror(). Appli-
cation code should not write to this buffe
