Re: Multiple test failures with --disable-shared

[Gary V. Vaughan]

[working through my email backlog after being mostly offline for the
 last week or more. Apologies if this is too late to be relevant.]

On 13 Jun 2010, at 12:07, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * 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?

Agreed. And please add a note to TODO so that we can find this thread
again if one of us decides to work on it in future.

>>> 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.

Well, I've had a week to mull it over.  The 'eww!' was in reference to
the hackiness, but I can't think of anything better either.

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)