Re: lt_dlopen with modules and no .la

[Pierre Ossman]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Bob, Pierre,
>
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:47:27PM CET:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> >
> > > When using ltdl on Windows to load plug-ins there is a problem with the 
> > > name mangling system. The info.name field is only set if libltdl finds a 
> > > .la file. Just the DLL won't do. The result is that symbols cannot be 
> > > found becaus libltdl looks for the plain name (without prefix).
> > >
> > > The problem should be the same on all systems, so I'm guessing this is 
> > > intended behaviour. So I'm wondering what's the rationale?
> >
> > It is intended that modules be loaded by specifying the name or path 
> > to the module .la file.

I can fully understand this as recommended behaviour. But I'm not 
comfortable with it being required. If you design your modules correctly 
you should be able to ship just DLL:s. This also has the benifit of 
allowing Windows to automagically find them. The la files need a correct 
path, which breaks the common scenario of dumping DLL:s in the same 
folder as the executable and having things just work.

> True.  It is still worthwhile to fix this in libltdl though (and I
> believe it is on our TODO list, too).

The fix should be a matter of moving the code that filters out the 
extension to before the branch between la and non-la files. I tried it 
here and it works lika a charm.

--
Rgds
Pierre Ossman                Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00
Cendio AB                    Web: http://www.cendio.com