[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:29:17 -0700
From: Brad Conroy <technosaurus@...oo.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Concerns about dlclose() behaviour
I recently checked out the netsurf-framebuffer package from debian
and was bothered that all of the backends were compiled in...
thus requiring a bunch of extra dependencies and increasing footprint.
I am currently patching it to make the backends modular, but ran into
a concern about musl compatibility.
libnsfb is set up in such a way that each backend has (static) functions
exported in a single struct. With normal dlclose() functionality, I could
use dlopen to get a module and run its init function, then if it fails, just
dlclose() it and try the next backend (all using the same variable and
function names, thus simplifying the implementation)
I am thinking this will still work on musl in a way similar to using
LD_PRELOAD, but wanted to verify before moving forward since many
nsfb users also use musl.
R,
Brad Conroy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
