This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- From: Peter Rosin <peda at lysator dot liu dot se>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:10:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- References: <4E0A02D6.8030300@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110628192153.GJ9552@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110701165752.GA27001@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20110701175153.GA16592@calimero.vinschen.de> <1309563631.3900.45.camel@YAAKOV04> <4E0EA866.2080606@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110702065327.GB15848@calimero.vinschen.de> <4E0FD956.3040800@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110703092105.GA24121@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110815172519.GF25129@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110818092014.GA5940@calimero.vinschen.de>
Den 2011-08-18 11:20 skrev Corinna Vinschen:
> So, nobody except Earnie is interested in the way dlopen opens shared
> objects? Nobody even replied to the idea of the pseudo algorithm below.
> Does really nobody care?
I have one little reservation, I don't like it when adding a seemingly
unrelated file can break old stuff. For example, let's say that I in the
future have an application that relies on the fact that it can dlopen
"libfoo.so" and get "cygfoo.dll". Everything works fine. If I then
install something that brings in a real "libfoo.so" things will break.
It's even a security problem because a carefully crafted rouge
libfoo.so can appear to work but do unwanted stuff behind my back.
But you should not allow rouge files on your system in the first place
so my point is perhaps not important enough?
Cheers,
Peter