Re: [FYI] loader-dyld.c did not compile

[Peter O'Gorman]

Gary V.Vaughan wrote:
> Yep, IIRC.
>
> This got me to thinking that we should offer both under Panther (in the 
> same way you get
> both LoadLibrary and dlopen under cygwin)... what do you think?

It would certainly make it easier to keep the dyld loader in a compilable 
state :)

If you want to make it use both, that is fine with me, but I'd rather that 
ltdl prefer dlopen if it is available. Reason being that the dlopen in 
panther is better tested than the dyld code in ltdl (although there are some 
striking similarities between the two, `man 3 dlopen' on your panther box if 
you are curious as to why).

Peter