On Mar 26, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Martin Husemann wrote:

> Now it seems we have to fix either of the above, and I'm looking  
> for the
> simpler change. Actually it does not make any sense to me to duplicate
> ld.elf_so functionality in the XFree loader - can someone tell me  
> why this
> is a good idea?

I'm told the point of XFree's own built-in loader is so that IT  
defines the ABI for the modules, and how they're loaded.  This  
theoretically allows XFree modules for e.g. Linux load on NetBSD.

> Would a third option be to use the DLOPEN_SUPPORT stuff in XFree? Any
> downsides? I found it ... strange ... that the XFree code always  
> seems to
> try it's homegrown loader first and only falls back to dlopen/dlsym  
> if that
> fails - what I'd like to see is dlopen/dlsym only stuff. Can  
> modules be build
> in a way that makes the X loader fail but dlopen/dlsym succeed?

We already have DLOPEN_SUPPORT enabled for one of our platforms  
(though I forget which one).  Anyway, a DLOPEN_SUPPORT_ONLY option  
might be nice.

-- thorpej