This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Shall dlopen("foo") succeeed if only "foo.dll" exists?

On Nov  2 14:17, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 11:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >For 1.7 our choice is to keep dlopen() checking for the .dll suffix to
> >be more Windows-like, or to be more Linux-like by dropping the check for
> >the .dll suffix so that dlopen() fails if the filename isn't specified
> >fully.
> OK, I'll admit I'm responding with a question without actually looking at the
> code and so one can feel free to ignore me.  However the thought that came
> to my mind is, should it really matter if dlopen() checks?  What does the check
> give us that just passing the name along to LoadLibrary() doesn't?  At first
> impression, doing the check just prematurely rejects names without
> the DLL suffix
> that would otherwise be accepted by Windows.  Since there's a source
> level change
> that (typically) needs to happen to make the code work on Windows as opposed
> to Linux/Unix, what benefit are we getting from this added check?

Good question, that's exactly why I'm asking.

Answer:  Nothing but *maybe* a less surprising behaviour in terms of
POSIX compatibility.  Allowing automatic file extension is not part of
the standards and not even mentioned as a possible option.  Sure, if
that's nothing to worry about, we can stick to the current behaviour.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]