Hi, Hans Aberg <hab...@math.su.se> writes:
> On 2 Feb 2010, at 17:52, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >> Unless I am missing something, the question to be answered is if >> Guile requests opening modules using a name like "module.so" >> (assuming a particular naming scheme), "module.la" (using libltdl >> as originally intended), or bare "module" (using libltdl >> heuristics, which tries several incantations, such as looking for >> .la, and .so). [...] > handle = lt_dlopenext (fname); The Guile manually specifically tells that FNAME should not contain an extension. Hans: in <de114180-13f6-498c-9e48-9407e5cfb...@math.su.se> [0], you said you compiled the module with “gcc -dynamiclib -lguile -o libguile-bessel.so bessel.c”. Is it the right incantation for loadable modules (not shared libraries) on Darwin? Surprisingly, I just noticed that Guile itself doesn’t use the ‘-module’ option of Libtool when creating its ‘libguile-srfi-srfi-1’ module (which is meant to be dlopened *or* directly linked against), although this has never caused any problems on OS X. If you search for that in [1], ‘libguile-srfi-srfi-1’ is actually created with ‘-dynamiclib’. (Either way, you’d probably be better off using Libtool to create the module.) Thanks, Ludo’. [0] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.bugs/4476 [1] http://hydra.nixos.org/build/275625/log/raw
