On Thursday 13 September 2001 21:30, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 07:31:41PM +0100, Nick Hudson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 September 2001 19:34, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
[...]
> > > * ltdl.m4 [AC_LTDL_SYS_DLOPEN_DEPLIBS]: Teach ltdl about the
> > > behavior of OpenBSD's dlopen().
> >
[...]
> Okay. Sorry. I thought that they would have had the same dlopen
> issues.
You right all the BSD derivatives are likely to have the same dlopen issues.
If you remember you introduced this stuff after I pointed out that the dlopen
behaviour on NetBSD didn't need libltdl to worry about dependencies. I'm
surprised it took the OpenBSD guys so long to catch up.
> HAVE_LIBDL is a misnomer, and should perhaps be renamed to
> HAVE_DLOPEN, since the additon of a library that contains dlopen is
> handled separately.
>
> Does libtool's configury detect that there is a dlopen function on
> NetBSD, but forget to set HAVE_LIBDL? I just backported AC_LTDL_DLLIB
> to branch-1-4, so cvs updating may be fruitful...
It looks as though you fixed this with Assar Westerlund's fix...
---
Changes by: Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/09/13 15:47:02
Modified files:
. : ChangeLog ltdl.m4
Log message:
* ltdl.m4 (AC_LTDL_DLLIB): call dlopen with arguments so the test
does not fail due to a prototype in dlfcn.h
---
>
> Thanks for persevering with me :-)
Its OK. Thanks for listening. :)
Nick
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
