Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/11/03/03:22:00
Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
> On Nov 2 14:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2009 11:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>> For 1.7 our choice is to keep dlopen() checking for the .dll suffix to
>>> be more Windows-like, or to be more Linux-like by dropping the check for
>>> the .dll suffix so that dlopen() fails if the filename isn't specified
>>> fully.
>>>
>> OK, I'll admit I'm responding with a question without actually looking at the
>> code and so one can feel free to ignore me. However the thought that came
>> to my mind is, should it really matter if dlopen() checks? What does the check
>> give us that just passing the name along to LoadLibrary() doesn't? At first
>> impression, doing the check just prematurely rejects names without
>> the DLL suffix
>> that would otherwise be accepted by Windows. Since there's a source
>> level change
>> that (typically) needs to happen to make the code work on Windows as opposed
>> to Linux/Unix, what benefit are we getting from this added check?
>>
>
> Good question, that's exactly why I'm asking.
>
> Answer: Nothing but *maybe* a less surprising behaviour in terms of
> POSIX compatibility. Allowing automatic file extension is not part of
> the standards and not even mentioned as a possible option. Sure, if
> that's nothing to worry about, we can stick to the current behaviour.
>
In terms of compatibility and least surprising behavior, what about
accepting
dlopen ("bla.so") and looking for "bla.dll"? This might help to avoid
source changes,
and it's kind of like the ".exe magic".
If POSIX requires to give the suffix I'm not sure whether this was wise
and whether they had
different suffixes in different environments in mind. I wonder how this
is handled on Mac
with its ".dylib" suffixes.
Thomas
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -