Re: [RFC] pre-c89 in libltdl

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On 20 Apr 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > As I am on a libltdl code simplification fix, a patch to drop MUTEX
> > fluff
> > entirely will be on its way shortly...
>
> Leaving mutexes up to the caller means that an app that links with
> multiple libraries that each wants to ltdlopen other stuff, odds are
> that the libs are all going to have to be modified to use a single
> mutex.  Remember that if each caller uses its own mutex, each one

This is a good point.

The problem with the libltdl thread-safety-support APIs as they exist
today is that they require a higher-level locking mechanism than a
simple POSIX mutex since they require that the user-provided lock be
re-entrant when invoked by the locking thread.  POSIX mutexes are not
re-entrant by the same thread.

It is wise to protect dl* calls since any POSIX specification for
these APIs is relatively new and the extra protection should not cause
any harm.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen