Re: linuxconf complexity

[smurf@noris.de (Matthias Urlichs)]

  Andreas Jaeger <aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de> writes:
> 
> I've changed Uli's programs according to Jack's description (hopefully 
> - please verify!) and now it seems that the program does what Jack
> want it to do;-):
> 
Hmmm... OK, so M dynloads N with RTLD_GLOBAL, N requires O; N calls a
function in O, which dynloads P; P isn't linked against O but tries to
directly call a function in O. This fails.

IMHO, it's perfectly correct to do so. Loading libN.so with RTLD_GLOBAL
should load the symbols in libN.so into the global table, but NOT any of
the libraries libO.so happens to be dynamically linked with, no matter
whether N or O ends up actually dynloading P.

I don't think it's unreasonable to require P to be linked with -lO if
it calls any functions in O. This is what ld.so requires in all other
situations. Playing with visibility (i.e. if the code which loads P happens
to be within library O, then *poof* the symbols in O are visible to P) is a
bad idea.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs  |  noris network GmbH   |   smurf@noris.de  |  ICQ: 20193661
The quote was selected randomly. Really.    |      http://www.noris.de/~smurf/
-- 
Real programmers don't comment their code.  If it was hard to write, it
  should be hard to understand.