[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: fixes to mdemo2 - appropriate?

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: fixes to mdemo2 - appropriate?
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:16:53 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Greg Eisenhauer wrote:
>       Basically the situation is this.  mdemo2 is a simple executable that
> links in an outside libtool library.  The complication is that that outside
> library (../mdemo/ uses libltdl to dlopen other libraries.
> Because of this, mdemo2, which doesn't directly use libltdl, must call
> LTDL_SET_PRELOADED_SYMBOLS() in main(), which means it must find an
> appropriate ltdl.h to include, and it must also call AC_LIBTOOL_DLOPEN in
> its
>       I understand why this is necessary given the current implementation
> of libtool, but I don't think it represents a good situation.  Essentially
> libtool is requiring the builders of an executable to know whether or not
> any of the libraries they include might use libltdl.  libtool should be
> hiding those details.

I don't believe that libtool should be hiding this particular detail.
If a library uses libltdl then it must provide a means to initialize
it.  Typically this could be done by requiring that a library
initialization function be executed before any other library function
is invoked.  This library initialization function can invoke
LTDL_SET_PRELOADED_SYMBOLS() if necessary.  There is no need for the
dependent application to include ltdl.h or (knowingly) invoke

Use of preloaded symbols is optional.  Libltdl can be used as a
portable dlsym() API and there are other ways to handle static builds
besides the preloaded symbols approach.  In these cases,
automatically invoking LTDL_SET_PRELOADED_SYMBOLS() from main() would
be counterproductive.

Bob Friesenhahn

reply via email to

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