[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: What about adding lt_dlopen_interface(lib, number)?

From: Rob Browning
Subject: Re: What about adding lt_dlopen_interface(lib, number)?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:00:21 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> How would people feel about the addition of a new function 
>   lt_dlhandle lt_dlopen_interface(const char *name, int interface_number);

So do the libtool maintainers have any opinion about this one way or
the other?  As it stands, Guile, and I suspect any other apps that
want to use dlopened libraries more heavily, especially user created
libraries that may depend on each other, really have to do something
to make sure they can rely on getting the interface they require when
opening a library.

To me, using the infrastructure libtool already supports as suggested
above, seems the most natural thing, but if that's not acceptable,
then Guile will probably need to implement something parallel to that
internally, perhaps using a naming convention that embeds the
versioning information in the library name, or something.

In any case, I just wanted to see if there's sentiment either way so
we can take it into consideration as we discuss what we need to do
next in Guile.


Rob Browning
rlb,, and
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

reply via email to

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