Re: Report proper errors from the loadlibrary loader.

[Peter Rosin]

Den 2010-01-04 21:48 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> Hi Peter,
>
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:02:57AM CET:
> > Please consider the attached patch.
> >
> > I'm just about to go skiing for a week or so, so I'll push when I get
> > back if this patch is blessed (knock wood) after I leave...
>
> Well happy new year and hope you had a fun time in the snow!

That I did, and so did the kids, the weather was superb, a bit on the
cold side though (-20 to -30 degrees C or so). But sunny (the sky was
clear), no wind and very dry so therefore not unbearable...

> What does this patch and its followup fix get us?  What behavior changed
> in relation to previous code, and if this is fixing a bug, is there need
> and chance to test for it?

Previously the reported error was a plain "can't open the module" or
"symbol not found", even though the system might have reported why it
could not open the library or not find the symbol. I would say it's
about the same as using dlerror when present in the dlopen loader.

It would be possible to test if the reported error is not "can't open
the module" / "symbol not found", under the assumption that it is
un likely for Microsoft/Wine to have used those exact words and case,
but that would require some way to check if the used loader was in
fact the loadlibrary loader and skip if not. I don't know how to do
the last part (Cygwin uses .dll for its dlopen loader, so that check
is a no-no).

> (honest questions, not trying to criticise the patch in any way)

No problem, and cheers,
Peter

--
They are in the crowd with the answer before the question.
> Why do you dislike Jeopardy?