[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Change lt_dlerror to return NULL instaed of "unknown error"

From: Scott James Remnant
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change lt_dlerror to return NULL instaed of "unknown error"
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:42:15 +0100

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 14:53, Peter O'Gorman wrote:

> On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 6:56 AM, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > [ Patch resubmitted -- ping! :-) ]
> >
> > This is the behaviour as described in the documentation.  Nothing I've
> > found relies on the different behaviour in the implementation so this
> > patch changes it to match the docs.
> >
> Hi Scott,
> I was just about to use my shiny new commit bit on this, you are of 
> course correct, ltdl should not return LT_DLSTRERROR (UNKNOWN) even if 
> there were no error.
More accurately, ltdl should only return LT_DLSTRERROR (UNKNOWN) when an
unknown error has occurred, and NULL if no error has occurred.

> However I realized that it was probably added because there are likely 
> places in the code where an error occurs but the error string is not 
> set. In this case returning NULL from lt_dlerror is also incorrect. I 
> am not about to look through the code looking for places where this 
> happens (it might not even happen as far as I know), but I suggest you 
> modify your patch so that if lt_dlopen, lt_dlsym lt_dlclose are 
> returning failure and the error has not been set then set the unknown 
> error.
I've checked through as thoroughly as I can, and I can't find any places
where this is true...  Every error'd return path seems to hit a seterror
call.  A couple actually set UNKNOWN which threw me, but it that doesn't
confuse this patch (it'll return UNKNOWN not NULL). 

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]