Re: libltdl is inefficient and a security hazard

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Howard Chu wrote:
> Yeah, I recall noticing all this in the past. That's why I usually delete .la 
> files after build time and make sure they never get installed. On platforms 
> where the dependent shared libraries are already listed inside a shared 
> library's dynamic loader section, all of this .la stuff is just wasted effort 
> (and time). So far I only see .la files being useful when statically linking,

I just did a little experiment and found if I use lt_dlopen() directly 
on the .so file that the modules based build "spins" (execute over and 
over from the shell in a tight loop) only about 10% slower than a 
static binary.  This is much better than the 5X to 6X slowdown 
observed due to loading via the .la file.

Unfortunately, my software is supposed to be portable so loading via 
the .la file is otherwise much better.  As a stopgap solution I may 
have my software read the .la file directly and obtain the loadable 
module name directly.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/