Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Sure, that's probably right.  However it's tough to tell.  You could
> look for "\.so(\.|$)" or something.  But that's encoding lots of
> details.
>
> I think that uses of dlopenext are already oblivious to `stat' calls,
> because they sanction looking for .la files before e.g. .so files, so
> it's not a problem to just do what the doc says: bare path first, then
> grovel extensions.

Use of .la files does not incur more stat calls unless the .la file is 
not present.  Using .la files is really a better solution than what 
you are trying to do.  The .la file format is just simple text so 
guile could construct its own .la files (or rename/link-to existing 
.la files) to load versioned libraries in a particular way.

Clearly libltdl is not matching its documentation and what you 
requested to do should have worked.  Always keep in mind that there is 
a cost in terms of performance and security whenever libltdl looks in 
another place.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/