[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ltdl bugs

From: Jeff Squyres
Subject: Re: ltdl bugs
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:03:27 -0500

On Apr 2, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:

| I am not sure that this is a bug, if you check the return code from
| lt_dlclose(), you will notice that it fails.

Hate to reply to myself, but I would consider that the memory not being
cleaned up by lt_dlexit() to be a bug. Darn, thought I'd get away with the
'not a bug' response.

Sorry - I should have clarified that in my original post; my sample app is not checking the return code, but only for simplicity of the e-mail. Of course my real application checks the return code. :-)

So there's actually 2 things:

1. lt_dlclose() needs to free the memory.

2. it might be appropriate to change the return code of lt_dlclose() because if the handle really does get freed, is it really an error? More specifically, if I get an error code back, how is one to determine if the handle was actually freed or not? At the very least, the documentation should be updated; perhaps a specific error code can be returned indicating "the handle was freed, but we didn't unload anything because this handle was the application itself".

Many thanks!

{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} address@hidden
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]