libltdl vs System.loadLibrary

Sun Mar 23 21:12:00 GMT 2003

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2002, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jeez, this was a *long* time ago! :-)
>>>>>>>>>"Anthony" == Anthony Green <green@redhat.com> writes:
>> Anthony> What does libltdl buy us beyond ldopen/ldclose? Could we
> Anthony> just remove it?
>>>>I chose it early on. I thought it would solve dlopen portability
>>problems for us. (And maybe it does and we haven't noticed :-)
>>Alexandre Oliva (CCd) may have insight on the pros and cons of this
>>library.
>>> I think the only portability wins would be on HP-UX and MS-Windows
> (and maybe Mac OS X, I'm not sure about this; it's been a long time
> :-). Oh, and any platforms that don't support dynamic linking, that
> dlpreopen emulates nicely, up to a point.
>Have a look @ libtool cvs, seems that darwin has some progress there.
How is progress on cvs libtool vs. gcc libtool?
Try to adapt a dylib (darwin) build for cvs soon, tomorrow.?
Andreas