Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hallo Andreas,

On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:

If you like to discuss those technical issues now, i'd be happy to hear more about the complexity of applications using libraries using libraries loading plugins using libraries using libraries loading plugins using libraries using libraries and what happends with duplicate symbols in this situation on all plattforms, possibly even those symbols being from different versions of a

library and thus maybe incompatible.

cause runtime problems even if the linker doesn't raise a red flag.

It won't work on at least several platforms... possibly not on any platform. Certainly duplicate symbols from different versions of the same library will

the only way I know to avoid problems is

and versioning magic in ld can work if needed.

to require the library being a shared library, so that if it is used in several places the dynamic linker makes sure the same implementation is used,

that library to ensure they are all calling the same libltdl.

Cheers,
        Gary
--
  ())_.              Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ( '/           Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
  / )=         ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_      Join my AGLOCO Network: http://www.agloco.com/r/BBBS7912

Another way to do it is like CVS HEAD m4: it provides a library that is in turn linked against the bundled libltdl, and all plugins must link against

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool