From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Wed Jan 13 1999 - 03:42:14 EST
On Jan 13, 1999, Godmar Back <gback@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I looked in Runtime.c and it does indeed #define LIBRARYSUFFIX ".la"
> What does this mean? It looks like it affects only Runtime.buildLibName.
> So, if a user loads does a `loadLibrary("mylib")', what will kaffe look
> for?
It will look for mylib.la. Oh oh, yet another source of problems.
Looking for .la is not bad in itself, since libltdl will soon be able
to take care of inter-library dependencies and such, plain dlopen
doesn't on most systems. However, there must be some way to let the
user dlopen a plain library, instead of a .la one. However, library
extensions are system-dependent, how did Kaffe guess the appropriate
extension before libtool, I don't remember? We should certainly test
with the system-dependent extension if the lookup for .la fails;
libltdl does support direct dlopening (i.e., not .la shared
libraries).
> Is Raffaele right when he says that somebody who simply builds a
> JNI native shared library is affected by our use of libtool?
Currently, yes, but not as soon as we re-introduce native library
extensions in Kaffe. Or should this be completely moved into
libltdl. That would be even better, don't you agree?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:40 EDT