Re: MinGW status

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > `lt__error_strings' assumed to have one element
> > > *snip*
> > >
> > > This is bad news indeed (but a different matter).  It essentially means
> > > that we are breaking binary compatibility as soon as we add another
> > > warning, right? (The array size is part of the ABI).  Very unfortunate.
> >
> > At first glance it does not appear to be a problem since the interface
> > is merely an array of string pointers and the index into the array
> > should be generated by libltdl itself so the array index should always
> > be in bounds.  Am I wrong?
>
> Well, I'm not an expert on this subject.  In Drepper's `How To Write
> Shared Libraries', chapter 3.1, he mentions that ``On platforms which
> require copy relocations to handle access to variables defined in DSOs
> in the main application (such as IA-32) the size of the variable must
> not change at all.  Otherwise variables might increase in size.''
> I don't what exactly is meant here, and consequently I don't know if
> it applies to this case.

The array is represented by a single pointer, and that pointer has a 
fixed size, so it seems ok to me.

> > As far as how libltdl's build goes, I do not like it at all that
> > libltdl is unnecessary introducing another installed library.  I don't
> > see a need for it.  I also don't like it that libltdl's Makefile.am is
> > referencing Automake's internal variables.
>
> Which ones are Automake internal and not published interface?

Any name which is generated by Automake and not described by the 
Automake documentation is not a published interface.  These internal 
variables are easily learned by reading the generated Makefile, but 
using them is essentially a statement that Automake will work the same 
for the rest of time, or that it worked the same in previous versions.

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