Hi,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 03:35:34PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Assuming that we agree with most of your points, would it not be
> sufficient to implement libltdl as a singleton model where each "user"
> requests a handle, and accesses via this handle access a single actual
> instance
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hello,
I've been reading "Using libltdl in a multi threaded environment" at
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Thread-Safety-in-libltdl.html#Thread-Safety-in-libltdl
and I must say I feel that it's rather misguided.
I'm as threading-r
* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:30:25AM CEST:
> On 08/11/10 05:33 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >Can you try removing that from the archive_cmds and archive_expsyms_cmds
> >variable settings in the first 150 lines of the generated libtool script
> >and seeing if the link then wor
Hello,
I've been reading "Using libltdl in a multi threaded environment" at
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Thread-Safety-in-libltdl.html#Thread-Safety-in-libltdl
and I must say I feel that it's rather misguided.
I'm as threading-resistant as anyone *)
, but IMHO suggesting
On 08/11/10 05:33 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:33:36PM CEST:
Hrmpf. On Solaris, we add '${wl}-z ${wl}text' to archive_cmds and
archive_expsyms_cmds unconditionally, as opposed to only with
-no-undefined. I wonder why that is the case.
If yo
