Ok. But what is the reason for still keeping shl_load and unloads? Is it to support some old HP-UX platforms when they didnt have dl* functions? Otherwise,we could simply do away with these sh* functions,is not it? --Biswatosh --- Howard Chu <hyc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Biswatosh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In dlopen.c, we have dlopen() as wrapper on > > shl_load(), > > dlclose() on shl_unload() etc. Any reason for > that? > > Today,in HP-UX,we can directly use dlopen() and > all. > > > > The reason I am asking is, one of my clients is > > complaining > > that symbol relocation is happening because of > this. > > dl* functions (which he calls), which should be > loaded > > from libdld.sl are rather being used from sasl > > library. > > > > > In my experience HPUX's dlopen is still rather > buggy. Other projects > have reported the same, e.g. > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=104396627316847&w=2 > > Still, a configure switch to explicitly choose > dlopen instead of > shl_load may not be a bad idea, for people who > absolutely have to have > it. It's probably safer than mixing shl_load and > dlopen in the same process. > > -- > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun > http://highlandsun.com/hyc > OpenLDAP Core Team > http://www.openldap.org/project/ > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
