Re: close vs socket vs getline

[Simon Josefsson]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

>> Some ideas:
>> 
>> 1) Should the sockets.m4 module unconditionally add LIBSOCKET to LDADD?
>> 
>> 2) Should the gnulib-tool generated Makefile.am add LIBSOCKET to LDADD?
>
> No, LDADD has an effect on all executables. I don't want to link all my
> programs against -lws2_32 just because one of them uses sockets.
>
> No, I don't want to add LIBSOCKET to the link dependencies of the 'close'
> and 'fclose' either. It would also have the effect that all or nearly my
> programs would link against -lws2_32.
>
> Dynamic loading of ws2_32,dll is not the solution either; it would still
> have the effect of loading an extra library in programs that don't need it.

Right.

>> Is there any other options?
>
> I propose to move the sockets related part of close() into the 'sockets'
> module, and connect the close() code with the sockets related code at runtime
> rather than at compile time. Like this (tested on mingw).

Nice idea!  It adds some complexity, but it makes the other code easier
to understand once you have understood close-hook.

I have tested it, and it seems to work for me on mingw and normal x86,
and solves the problem.  Please push it.

/Simon