Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts)

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: ltdl.c and 1.4.1 (type conflicts), Gary V. Vaughan said...:

>On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:29:57AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> "Gary V. Vaughan" wrote:
>>
>> > Suggestions?
>>
>> 2.  Recast everything as "ptr_t" which is a typedef for "char*".
>>     Amdhal is the only system I know of with 64 bit proc pointers
>>     and 32 bit data pointers.  If you gotta support Amdhal, then
>>     kludge some sort of hack for that weirdo platform.
>
>This is what I am doing already.  Isn't it?  (Not the Amdhal bit)

It looks that way.

What I think others are suggesting is that a typedef or define for a pointer
to the exact function prototype be created, and that type is what should
be used for functions that need to exchange pointers to functions.
Something similar to what's done on page 147 (section 6.7) of K&R2e --
create a typedef something like

        typedef int (*lt_func_ptr)(const char *, lt_ptr);

and then use `lt_func_ptr' as the type of the argument for functions that
need to exchange function pointers.  If there are functions with other
signatures (different return type or different # & type of args), an
additional typedef would be needed for those as well.

Of course, most of the functions still use the K&R style arg definitions.
Maybe it should be switched to using ANSI only, and people should be advised
to use `ansi2knr' if they need to compile libtool with a pre-ANSI compiler.
This may not sit well with the gcc people, as we may get into a
chicken-or-the-egg problem there.  I don't know.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                              address@hidden
Information Technology Services         (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building              (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164