Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Peter,

* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:07:44AM CEST:
> On 06/11/2010 11:56 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 
> >1: There might be a better way.  I'm thinking...
> 
> I'm not sure what testing that modules cannot be unloaded gets you
> when you don't have shared libraries.

That may be true, but the failure was during lt_dlopen.  I think it
should be possible to preload modules with the resident bit, no?  I
mean, they are the prototype of resident modules, their closing is what
won't do the right thing for non-residents (and maybe a future
improvement of the preopen loader could even emulate that).

This failure looks like a genuine ltdl bug to me; why not leave it open
for now?

> >3: eww!
> 
> It's either skip the test entirely or some crap like this, you can't
> load a static archive "RTLD_LOCAL", then load a different static
> archive with the same symbols later "RTLD_GLOBAL", and expect things
> to work. I debated what to do, and decided to do the crap thing,
> since it's possible some parts of the test are useful.

I don't have a better idea here either; only that something like your
paragraph above should be a comment right before the hack, so we don't
ask ourselves the same question again next time.

FWIW, the other two look good to me to.

Thanks!
Ralf