X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:33:49 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Shall dlopen("foo") succeeed if only "foo.dll" exists?
Message-ID: <20091102203348.GC6836@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20091102164807 DOT GA2897 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <4AEF305E DOT 1010105 AT cygwin DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AEF305E.1010105@cygwin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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

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

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple