[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:07:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-04-22) |
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:07:44AM CEST:
> On 06/11/2010 11:56 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
> >1: There might be a better way. I'm thinking...
>
> I'm not sure what testing that modules cannot be unloaded gets you
> when you don't have shared libraries.
That may be true, but the failure was during lt_dlopen. I think it
should be possible to preload modules with the resident bit, no? I
mean, they are the prototype of resident modules, their closing is what
won't do the right thing for non-residents (and maybe a future
improvement of the preopen loader could even emulate that).
This failure looks like a genuine ltdl bug to me; why not leave it open
for now?
> >3: eww!
>
> It's either skip the test entirely or some crap like this, you can't
> load a static archive "RTLD_LOCAL", then load a different static
> archive with the same symbols later "RTLD_GLOBAL", and expect things
> to work. I debated what to do, and decided to do the crap thing,
> since it's possible some parts of the test are useful.
I don't have a better idea here either; only that something like your
paragraph above should be a comment right before the hack, so we don't
ask ourselves the same question again next time.
FWIW, the other two look good to me to.
Thanks!
Ralf
- Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared, (continued)
Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared, Peter O'Gorman, 2010/06/12
Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/06/22
Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/06/23