Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:55:11PM CEST:
>
> RTLD_GLOBAL can be passed to dlopen, but (assuming my recollection that AIX
> is one of the hosts that requires all symbols to be resolved at link time
> is correct) in the test case I just patched, AIX can't build m
Howdy Bob!
On 22 May 2007, at 15:32, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Except for annoyance to the end-user, I was originally thinking that
we don't need to distinguish. When the developer's libltdl client
code calls lt_dladvise_global, we could have it emit a
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Except for annoyance to the end-user, I was originally thinking that
we don't need to distinguish. When the developer's libltdl client
code calls lt_dladvise_global, we could have it emit a warning to
stderr that says: If what you are trying to do won
On 22 May 2007, at 13:48, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:24:25PM CEST:
On 22 May 2007, at 13:16, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:11:03PM CEST:
I'm wondering how to best warn people who have their project
bu
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:24:25PM CEST:
> On 22 May 2007, at 13:16, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:11:03PM CEST:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how to best warn people who have their project
>>> build rely on RTLD_GLOBAL that what they a
Hallo Ralf,
On 22 May 2007, at 13:16, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:11:03PM CEST:
I'm wondering how to best warn people who have their project
build rely on RTLD_GLOBAL that what they are doing is inherently
non-portable.
Erm, relying on RTLD_LOCAL
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:11:03PM CEST:
>
> I'm wondering how to best warn people who have their project
> build rely on RTLD_GLOBAL that what they are doing is inherently
> non-portable.
Erm, relying on RTLD_LOCAL is non-portable. Relying on RTLD_GLOBAL is
not; after all
Hallo Ralf,
On 22 May 2007, at 13:03, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Not sure what you intend here. I don't see how libtool can
automatically detect non-portability to happen here. If all
you're out to is add a warning to the test source code, then
sure, go ahead.
I'm wondering how to best warn peop
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:30:26PM CEST:
> On 22 May 2007, at 10:45, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>> I'd prefer, if it's not too much work, that the test be run on all
>> systems, but on the tough ones not build moddepend, and exit SKIP
>> even if the other modules
On 22 May 2007, at 10:45, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:38:02AM CEST:
Looking at this again in the fresh light of day, I realised that
the entire
point of the moddepend test is to check that its unresolved
symbols can be
s
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:38:02AM CEST:
>
> Looking at this again in the fresh light of day, I realised that the entire
> point of the moddepend test is to check that its unresolved symbols can be
> satisfied from the program that lt_dlopen()'s it when using the g
Morgen Ralf,
On 21 May 2007, at 18:20, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:42:09PM CEST:
That would defeat building moddepend with unresolved symbols at
link time,
so that we can test that it correctly calls the matching symbols
from
modglobal after load
On 21 May 2007, at 17:15, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Gary,
Apologies for the huge delay.
Hallo Ralf,
No problem. Life always seems to be an endless sink for my time too ;-)
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:42:09PM CEST:
+for file in modresident modlocal modglobal mod
Hello Gary,
Apologies for the huge delay.
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:42:09PM CEST:
>
> Thanks for the review :-) Patch now committed to CVS.
Thank you.
>> handle is never closed here. This is important: some failures are only
>> caught at module closing time.
>
> in ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Gary V. Vaughan on 5/9/2007 2:12 AM:
>>
>> There is in fact a new bugglet due to this patch:
>>
>> gmake[3]: *** No rule to make target `tests/lt_dladvise.at', needed by
>> `tests/testsuite'. Stop.
>
> D'oh! Thanks for the heads up. Fi
Hi Bob,
On 9 May 2007, at 03:27, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
On 6 May 2007, at 21:57, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the review :-) Patch now committed to CVS.
There is in fact a new bugglet due to this patch:
gmake[3]: *** N
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
On 6 May 2007, at 21:57, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the review :-) Patch now committed to CVS.
There is in fact a new bugglet due to this patch:
gmake[3]: *** No rule to make target `tests/lt_dladvise.at', needed by
On 6 May 2007, at 21:57, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the review :-) Patch now committed to CVS.
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:33:37PM CEST:
Sorry for the delay.
Don't worry, and likewise. Thanks for the patch. Please ensure
next time
t
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:33:37PM CEST:
> Sorry for the delay.
Don't worry, and likewise. Thanks for the patch. Please ensure next time
that your mailer does not wrap long lines; I should apologize in advance
that my mailer may do the same now.
> I've added a
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
lt_dladvise advise;
if (!lt_dladvise_init(&advise))
return 1;
In this way, lt_dladvise can be a pointer, an integer, or a structure.
Okay, I'm happy to do it that way :-)
We already decided that it will be a pointer for future ABI compatib
Hi Bob!
On 10 Apr 2007, at 15:35, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
int errors = 0;
lt_dlhandle handle;
lt_dladvise advise = lt_dladvise_init ();
if (advise == 0)
return 1;
Not ideal. By comparing with zero there is an implicit assumption
regarding
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
int errors = 0;
lt_dlhandle handle;
lt_dladvise advise = lt_dladvise_init ();
if (advise == 0)
return 1;
Not ideal. By comparing with zero there is an implicit assumption
regarding the lt_dladvise type. It is usually better to avoid any
u
On 9 Apr 2007, at 13:03, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:09:23PM CEST:
pthread_mutex_t mutex; pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr,PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, &attr); pthread_
Hallo Ralf,
On 8 Apr 2007, at 18:03, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 12:53:01PM CEST:
On 8 Apr 2007, at 01:56, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Incidentally, I'm don't know whether it would be wiser to go from
2.1a
to 2
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
The pthread interfaces don't assume that the object is a pointer so
they work differently than suggested. Pointers are error prone so
they are best reserved for internal library interfaces if possible.
Wait. If you have a pointer to a struct, then y
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:09:23PM CEST:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >But this is how it can be extended without breaking API! Only if
> >lt_dlopaque is a pointer type, of course, and also you need to free the
> >object later on.
> >
> >And IIUC then
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
(stupid symbol names aside):
lt_dlopaque opaque = lt_dlopaque_new();
lt_dlset_symglobal (opaque);
handle = lt_dlopenopaque ("libmod.la", opaque);
But this is how it can be extended without breaking API! Only if
lt_dlopaque is a pointer typ
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 12:53:01PM CEST:
> On 8 Apr 2007, at 01:56, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>First, many many thanks for attacking this.
>
> No problem. I plan to spend a day or so each week tackling all of the
> showstoppers
Hallo Ralf, Bob,
On 8 Apr 2007, at 01:56, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
First, many many thanks for attacking this.
No problem. I plan to spend a day or so each week tackling all of the
showstoppers so we can put out a final alpha release.
Incidentally, I
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
First, many many thanks for attacking this. Second, please allow me a
couple of days for review, I'll try to get to it soon. Next, please be
aware that as important as documentation would be test exposure for the
functionality. Actually, test exposur
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:28:25AM CEST:
>
> I didn't write the documentation yet incase the interface changes
> during patch review. If there are no comments over the next few
> days, I'll write those docs and commit.
First, many many thanks for attacking this.
31 matches
Mail list logo
