Re: ltdl bugs

[Jeff Squyres]

On Apr 2, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:

> | I am not sure that this is a bug, if you check the return code from
> | lt_dlclose(), you will notice that it fails.
>
> Hate to reply to myself, but I would consider that the memory not being
> cleaned up by lt_dlexit() to be a bug. Darn, thought I'd get away with 
> the
> 'not a bug' response.

Sorry - I should have clarified that in my original post; my sample app 
is not checking the return code, but only for simplicity of the e-mail. 
  Of course my real application checks the return code.  :-)

So there's actually 2 things:

1. lt_dlclose() needs to free the memory.

2. it might be appropriate to change the return code of lt_dlclose() 
because if the handle really does get freed, is it really an error?   
More specifically, if I get an error code back, how is one to determine 
if the handle was actually freed or not?  At the very least, the 
documentation should be updated; perhaps a specific error code can be 
returned indicating "the handle was freed, but we didn't unload 
anything because this handle was the application itself".

Many thanks!

--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} address@hidden
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/