Re: [RFC]: Solib search (Was: Re: Cross solib support; continued)

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>]

On Nov 27,  6:48pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:44:28PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> > On Nov 27,  2:29pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 
> > > I think your patch is OK.  If we fail to find it in the absolute path,
> > > search for its "absolute" (without leading directory separator[s])
> > > path in each directory in the solib-search-path.  Then try searching
> > > for its basename as a last resort.  Right?
> > 
> > I don't like it.  In particular, the part I don't like is:
> > 
> > +  /* If the search in solib_absolute_prefix failed, and the path name is
> > +     absolute at this point, make it relative.  (openp will try and open the
> > +     file according to its absolute path otherwise, which is not what we want.)
> > +     Affects all subsequent searches for this solib.  */
> > +  if (found_file < 0 && IS_DIR_SEPARATOR (in_pathname[0]))
> > +    in_pathname++;
> > +
> > 
> > I do understand Orjan's reasons for doing this, but it seems rather
> > fragile to me.  I think that we'd be better off doing one of the
> > following:
> > 
> >     1) Change openp()'s behavior so that it (optionally) doesn't
> >        attempt to open a file (which has an absolute path).  I.e,
> >        force it to only consider the paths that we pass it.
> > 
> >     2) Explicitly prepend solib_absolute_prefix to the path in question
> >        and pass that to openp().  Or, perhaps openp() doesn't even need
> >        to be called.  Perhaps we can do the job with open().
> 
> If I understand correctly, that's not what he was trying to accomplish. 
> He was trying to have openp() search for the "absolute" path after each
> member of solib-search-path.  Am I wrong?

You're right.  (I misread part of the patch.)

I just looked at the patch again.  Now that I look at it some more, I
think it's okay so long as Eli's concerns are addressed.

Kevin