Re: dynamic object searching (was: Re: Dynamic objects)

[Tim Murphy]

On 30 April 2013 17:28, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

> Since you can't (in my recent experience) load a 64-bit DLL into a 32-bit
> program, the real issue is what architecture was make itself built with.

That's unrelated.  I was talking about the fact that

      load foo.so

is inherently non-portable, whereas

      load foo
or
      load foo$(SOEXT)

(with $(SOEXT) determined automatically by Make) is much more
portable.

Everything's non-portable - trying to solve this doesn't help at all - just complicates the rest of the process.

I have to generate those plugins anyhow so there's all the non-portable code to call whatever compiler and linker are needed for that particular platform.  All of that code has to specify the extension anyhow so what do I gain?

i.e. I don't just have

load X.dll

I have to supply the recipe to build it on windows:

X.dll:

  cl.exe  /address@hidden .... # use microsoft's compiler

and on Linux

X.so:

   gcc -o address@hidden ... # using gcc

On top of this, the extension doesn't help when you're on 32-bit platforms because it doesn't indicate whether the plugin is 32 or 64 bit.

So to me it just seems like a complication because it can't solve the whole problem that make generally needs explicit effort to support builds on multiple platforms.

Regards,

Tim

--
You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at:

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/friends/