On Sun, 16 May 2004, Stas Bekman wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2004, Randy Kobes wrote: [ .. ] > Well, I don't want to destabilize the tree, we should make > a new release pretty soon. I think while you are playing > with various solutions you could just check the cvs tree > for the day I've posted my second patch and it should > apply just fine. Your work is going to be in the > xs/APR/APR area, not really touching anything else. If you > think it's a problem I'll then try to post an up-to-date > patch, but it may quickly become out-of-date in a few > days.
Sounds good ... > > > I guess all you need to do is to change > > > xs/APR/APR/Makefile.PL to collect all .o files from under > > > xs/APR and a few selected src/modules/perl/modperl_xxx.o > > > and link them statically with APR.so if under win32. (and > > > may be some other platforms too (aix comes to mind)). > > > > Just so I understand correctly, in this approach we'll have > > one (big) APR.so that has collected all the functionality of > > the individual APR::* modules (as well as the old APR.so > > itself and selected symbols from modperl_xxx.o)? Or does APR > > stay essentially the same (with the added symbols from > > selected modperl_xxx.o), and then one links each APR::* with > > APR.so? > > I was talking about the former, where APR.so will include all > objects in Wrap/APR/*/.o (not .so) and some > of src/modules/perl/modperl_xxx.o. OK, that makes sense ... > I'm not sure how can you go with the latter idea. I mean, > I'll work perfectly fine without mod_perl. But how is it > going to work under mod_perl, when both mod_perl.so and > APR.so will have the same symbols, and according to your > suggestion, both will be loaded (since APR/Foo.so will be > linked against APR.so). In this approach I don't there's a problem on Windows with linking against libraries with the same symbols; depending on the order of the libraries in the link command, VC++ will resolve the symbols not found in the object files in the 1st library file it finds that has them (which then registers the corresponding .so, if it's a shared library), so any identical symbols in a later library used in the link command are ignored. Thus, you could in principle build an application linked against two dlls that have the same symbols in them and there shouldn't be a conflict, as the application knows, from how it was linked, which dll each symbol comes from. However, this also means that no symbols can be resolved through mod_perl.lib, as this would require loading mod_perl.so (unless one used the -delayload link option, to load the dll only if a symbol is invoked). > It would have worked perfectly if > we could also link mod_perl.so against APR.so and not > include those symbols in mod_perl.so. Which is probably > the best solution possible. The problem is that the loaded > will somehow have to find APR.so when trying to load > mod_perl.so. This could have been done by installing > APR.so along with libapr.so I suppose. > In that case we will have APR a totally autonomous systems and mod_perl > will use it. May be it makes perfect sense, but I haven't thought of the > implications for users. > > > It should be relatively straightforward to do the latter (as > > long as APR.so is built before APR::*). However, with the > > former, there'd be problems building the individual APR::* > > modules first, to be used as components in building APR.so, > > for the same reason that exists now - to build APR::*, one > > has to specify the library where the symbols are found, and > > one can't specify a library (APR.so) that hasn't been built > > yet. > > But I was talking about building .o objects, not shared > libs. and linking those .o objects with APR.so. Will that > be a problem too? AFAIK you never need to provide > information about shared libs, during compilation time. Is > that different on windows? No, you're right - resolving all symbols only is required at link time, so this could be done by just compiling (with -c) the APR::* files to build the object files, and skip building the associated APR::* dlls, as is done now. I think things are becoming clearer to me - thanks. It looks like most of this can be done by fiddling with the compiling/linking commands, without the need (hopefully) of any source code modifications. I'll try it and see. -- best regards, randy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
