This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
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
> 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
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple