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
