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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

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?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer