Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com From: Chris Faylor Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:24:47 -0400 To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: libtooldl Message-ID: <20000919072447.E27571@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com References: <005301c0222b$1b649a90$f7c723cb@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i In-Reply-To: <005301c0222b$1b649a90$f7c723cb@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:05PM +1100 On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:05PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >If I understand the dlopen issue correctly, no software that uses >LoadLibrary() directly will work properly under cygwin due to MS wierdness? LoadLibrary doesn't work correctly with fork(). That's it. It's not MS weirdness, really. Microsoft surely didn't anticipate cygwin fork(). >so libtooldl (or whatever the libtool dl functions are prefixed with) won't >work properly as they use LoadLibrary(). Sounds like it. >I think that either LoadLibrary() should not be accessible from cygwin, or a >wrapper should be written. (Sorry Chris, I'll just speak up and suggest >_more_ work for you shall I?) I'm not going to write a wrapper and I am certainly not going to eliminate LoadLibrary(). As always, if someone else wants to do this, however, I'll gladly look into a patch. Writing a wrapper for LoadLibrary will be pretty tricky, though. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com