GNU bug report logs - #8976
documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jul 2011 16:16:09 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jul 01 12:16:09 2011
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1QcgNz-0000QR-6r
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:16:08 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92])
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1QcfFg-0007GM-92
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1QcfFZ-0008Kz-Bt
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:22 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 
	T_DKIM_INVALID,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:57382)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1QcfFY-0008Kp-S6
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:21 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46282)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1QcfFV-0001MH-J5
	for bug-libtool@HIDDEN; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>) id 1QcfFT-0008JH-GB
	for bug-libtool@HIDDEN; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:17 -0400
Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:48319
	helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@HIDDEN>)
	id 1QcfFN-0008Ha-Rn; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:03:10 -0400
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE615D06;
	Fri,  1 Jul 2011 11:05:23 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
	:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=UMKBtQOYoY+p
	A9F7SAMBIoHjSdY=; b=Ugj5COR+l4Mjvk7JwDNN8rmhDdHI5KNZB1Nf0xZHapSS
	e5l5DyBXfR3ZG0oVW6AeBJczPyyhQIdHAzrcV/7mAbRuErcbYiOe9sVPN+Zbtbsv
	O0T/bN/51ikOJvYIinDvz5VE1TOo9fNIbHAZWgFWvP9fFfGnsVLVTsG0rBUWsKA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
	:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lKFq78
	oUs7/tn6dFVrLQyS41E8f+K4l/uzWof188gtK7TxKeE5V3qV+1gUl8tjLgZlzBWH
	Nc0T65Ny+wwuCMgKqaSdV4K1tie1WbvCf/1BJ71+RHfixIAZcgF04Z9/2Zj30sOE
	cQtgrfbdykjvpvQBE01uj0izdDlYuaKKAOrd4=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208D05D05;
	Fri,  1 Jul 2011 11:05:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from badger (unknown [95.21.56.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher
	DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by
	a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29CEF5D04;
	Fri,  1 Jul 2011 11:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN>
To: bug-libtool@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: documentation / behavior discrepancy with lt_dlopenext
References: <m3oc4s1q7d.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:03:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <m3oc4s1q7d.fsf@HIDDEN> (Andy Wingo's message of
	"Wed, 30 Mar 2011 19:19:18 +0200")
Message-ID: <87iprm6o2g.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8ADBD630-A3F3-11E0-A387-5875C023C68D-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta)
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3)
X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17
X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:16:06 -0400
Cc: bug-guile@HIDDEN
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/pipermail/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
	<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----)

Hi list,

Re-sending this report, now that you have debbugs.

On Wed 30 Mar 2011 19:19, Andy Wingo <wingo@HIDDEN> writes:

> The ltdl docs say:
>
>     =E2=80=94 Function: lt_dlhandle lt_dlopenext (const char *filename)
>
>         The same as lt_dlopen, except that it tries to append different f=
ile
>         name extensions to the file name. If the file with the file name
>         FILENAME cannot be found libltdl tries to append the following
>         extensions: [...]
>
> However, there are cases in which lt_dlopenext does not look for a bare
> filename.  Specifically the code does:
>
>       if (!filename
>           || !advise
>           || !advise->try_ext
>           || has_library_ext (filename))
>         try the bare file
>       else if (filename && *filename)
>         try extensions...
>
> So, we see that if has_library_ext is FALSE, we don't try the bare
> file.  But that check fails for full paths, like
> "/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.3".
>
>     $ strace guile -c '(dynamic-link "/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.3")'
>     [...]
>     open("/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.3.la", O_RDONLY) =3D -1 ENOENT (N=
o such file or directory)
>     open("/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0.11.3.so", O_RDONLY) =3D -1 ENOENT (N=
o such file or directory)
>     [...]
>
> The documentation and the code do not agree.  I propose that we fix the
> code, to add another `stat' (I know) -- of the bare file name, before
> trying to add extensions, in the dlopenext case.
>
> What do you think?

The original discussion was here:

  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs/5387

Any ideas? :-)

Andy
--=20
http://wingolog.org/