[working through my email backlog after being mostly offline for the last week or more. Apologies if this is too late to be relevant.]
On 13 Jun 2010, at 12:07, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * 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? Agreed. And please add a note to TODO so that we can find this thread again if one of us decides to work on it in future. >>> 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. Well, I've had a week to mull it over. The 'eww!' was in reference to the hackiness, but I can't think of anything better either. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)
