[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is it a typo in libltdl?

From: Zhe Su
Subject: Re: Is it a typo in libltdl?
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:52:59 +0800

  Thanks for your reply.

James Su

On 1/28/07, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden > wrote:
Hello James,

* Zhe Su wrote on Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:51:52AM CET:
> Hi,
>  I found a possible typo in libltdl in lt_dlmutex_register(). while reading
> its source code. Patch is attached.

Thanks very much.  I've applied the patch.

Please note though that the CVS HEAD branch has removed the locking
functionality, partly because it was deemed impossible to provide a
useful and efficient interface, and better if the user using libltdl
implemented that.  So it's better if you don't depend on it.

Then how should I make the code thread safe? Adding mutex locks around each libltdl call?
When will the CVS HEAD branch be released as stable version?


2007-01-27  James Su <address@hidden>

        * libltdl/ltdl.c (lt_dlmutex_register): Fix usage of old unlock
        function.  Also replace the seterror function.
        * THANKS: Update.

RCS file: /cvsroot/libtool/libtool/THANKS,v
retrieving revision
diff -u -r1.34.2.20 THANKS
--- THANKS      21 Jan 2007 16:16:05 -0000
+++ THANKS      27 Jan 2007 16:19:51 -0000
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@
   Howard Chu                   address@hidden
   Ian Lance Taylor             address@hidden
   Jacob Meuser                 address@hidden
+  James Su                     address@hidden
   Jeff Squyres                 address@hidden
   Jeremy C. Reed               address@hidden
   Joel N. Weber II             address@hidden
Index: libltdl/ltdl.c
RCS file: /cvsroot/libtool/libtool/libltdl/ltdl.c,v
retrieving revision
diff -u -r1.174.2.23 ltdl.c
--- libltdl/ltdl.c      13 Oct 2006 14:13:31 -0000
+++ libltdl/ltdl.c      24 Jan 2007 12:52:14 -0000
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@
      lt_dlmutex_seterror *seterror;
      lt_dlmutex_geterror *geterror;
-  lt_dlmutex_unlock *old_unlock = unlock;
+  lt_dlmutex_unlock *old_unlock = lt_dlmutex_unlock_func;
   int               errors     = 0;

   /* Lock using the old lock() callback, if any.  */
@@ -929,6 +929,7 @@
       lt_dlmutex_lock_func     = lock;
       lt_dlmutex_unlock_func   = unlock;
+      lt_dlmutex_seterror_func = seterror;
       lt_dlmutex_geterror_func = geterror;

reply via email to

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