Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext

[Andy Wingo]

Greets Ralf,

On Wed 30 Mar 2011 21:20, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

> * Andy Wingo wrote on Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:19:18PM CEST:
>> "/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.3".
>
> Well, I'd kinda argue that that file has a library extension, but after
> that extension, there's version the info extension.  This is common for
> several systems (e.g., GNU/Linux, Solaris).

Sure, that's probably right.  However it's tough to tell.  You could
look for "\.so(\.|$)" or something.  But that's encoding lots of
details.

I think that uses of dlopenext are already oblivious to `stat' calls,
because they sanction looking for .la files before e.g. .so files, so
it's not a problem to just do what the doc says: bare path first, then
grovel extensions.

MHO :)

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/