Re: Gmodule stuff.

[Sebastian Wilhelmi <wilhelmi ira uka de>]

Hi Tim,

> > Would you mind, if I checked in the proposed patch of
> >
> >       http://bugs.gnome.org/db/54/5429.html
> 
> seems ok, however, the section
> 
> +   if (handle == PROG_HANDLE)
> +     {
> +       handle = NULL;
> +     }
> 
> should come with a comment of _why_ we use NULL instead of PROG_HANDLE on
> HP-UX.
> 
> > It seems rather obvious. The only part, that might need more attantion is,
> > that HP-UX seems to require '.sl' instead of '.so' (Thats at least, what
> > ltconfig implies). So we  could add a macro with the proper ending to
> > glibconfig.h like one of (maybe better without the dot?):
> 
> > #define G_MODULE_SUFFIX ".so"
> > #define G_MODULE_SUFFIX ".sl"
> > #define G_MODULE_SUFFIX ".dll"
> 
> i think having them without the dot would be better.

ok. Additionally I like the idea to be able to open libtool .la archives. I'll
cook up patch.

> > BTW: what about moving testgmodule to glib/tests? I would migrate it there, if
> > you don't object.
> 
> urm, i'd rather leave the test where it is, i don't see much point in moving
> module specific tests away from their modules.

The point is: When we leave it in gmodule nobody will ever call it, whereas
when it is in the tests subdir (and in TESTS in tests/Makefile.am), it gets
called with 'make check'. We could of course add it to TESTS in
gmodule/Makefile.am, but that would not give the '5 of 10 tests failed'
message in the end, but different messages for the different subdirs. That's
why it seems like a good idea to move it to tests..

Bye,
Sebastian
-- 
Sebastian Wilhelmi
mailto:wilhelmi ira uka de
http://goethe.ira.uka.de/~wilhelmi