[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?
From: |
Gary V. Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions? |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:05:32 -0400 |
Hallo Andreas,
On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
If you like to discuss those technical issues now, i'd be happy to
hear more
about the complexity of applications using libraries using
libraries loading
plugins using libraries using libraries loading plugins using
libraries using
libraries and what happends with duplicate symbols in this
situation on all
plattforms, possibly even those symbols being from different
versions of a
library and thus maybe incompatible.
It won't work on at least several platforms... possibly not on any
platform.
Certainly duplicate symbols from different versions of the same
library will
cause runtime problems even if the linker doesn't raise a red flag.
the only way I know to avoid problems is
to require the library being a shared library, so that if it is
used in
several places the dynamic linker makes sure the same
implementation is used,
and versioning magic in ld can work if needed.
Another way to do it is like CVS HEAD m4: it provides a library that
is in
turn linked against the bundled libltdl, and all plugins must link
against
that library to ensure they are all calling the same libltdl.
Cheers,
Gary
--
())_. Email me: address@hidden
( '/ Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
/ )= ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_ Join my AGLOCO Network: http://www.agloco.com/r/BBBS7912
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part