Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:42:00PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >maybe I'll find some time to take it over... You'd hardly be mean if you actually took over maintainership. It's far meaner to send a "me too" about problems you've noticed without actually doing anything whatsoever. cgf -- Unsubscri

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Reini Urban
Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:15:49PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Hallo Christopher, Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du: On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:15:49PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Hallo Christopher, >Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du: >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >>>Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was >>>fixed. > >>Surel

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Hallo Christopher, Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >>Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was >>fixed. > Surely you know why. We leave bugs in the code just to make people > suff

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was >fixed. Surely you know why. We leave bugs in the code just to make people suffer. WJM, cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Hello Peter, >> > Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing. >> > pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails. >> > Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad >> > spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely >> works, that

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Mark Bohlman
Peter Ekberg wrote: Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing. pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails. Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely works, that I have tried myse

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-11 Thread Peter Ekberg
> > Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing. > > pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails. > > Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad > > spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely > works, that > > I have tried my

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Hallo Peter, Am Dienstag, 10. August 2004 um 22:58 schriebst du: > I wrote: >> Reid Thompson wrote: >> > well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and >> > your original post works >> > >> > $ ./load >> > pseudo_stub.dll ok >> > foo.dll ok >> >> That's strange, did my ori

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Peter Ekberg
I wrote: > Reid Thompson wrote: > > well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and > > your original post works > > > > $ ./load > > pseudo_stub.dll ok > > foo.dll ok > > That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for > pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Peter Ekberg
Reid Thompson wrote: > well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and > your original post works > > $ ./load > pseudo_stub.dll ok > foo.dll ok That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some juggling, the same thing i

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Reid Thompson
IL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls > > > Reid Thompson wrote: > > take the underscore out of the dll name > > > > psuedo_stub -> psuedostub > > Yes, that works. It also works if I add an s making it > pseudo_s

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Reid Thompson
bs.dll", > NULL > }; and all works reid > -Original Message- > From: Reid Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:57 PM > To: Reid Thompson; Peter Ekberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls > > > actually

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Reid Thompson
printf("ok\n"); } return 0; } RESULTS-RESULTS pseudostubs.dll dlopen: Win32 error 126 foo.dll ok psuedostubs.dll ok reid > -Original Message- > From: Reid Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:49 PM > To: Peter Ekberg; [EMAIL PROTEC

RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Reid Thompson
take the underscore out of the dll name psuedo_stub -> psuedostub reid > -Original Message- > From: Peter Ekberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls &

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-10 Thread Peter Ekberg
Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0200, Peter Ekberg wrote: >>I have read several messages stating that dlopen does not work for dlls >>that depend on cygwin1.dll. >>(e.g. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg01056.html). >>I have also understood that this is

Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls

2004-08-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0200, Peter Ekberg wrote: >I have read several messages stating that dlopen does not work for dlls >that depend on cygwin1.dll. >(e.g. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg01056.html). >I have also understood that this is due to some structures not bein