Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andy Ross wrote: >> Erik Hofman wrote: >> >>>Since FlightGear is linked to libGL at link time, the number of >>>dlclose calls would always be one less than the number of dlopen >>>calls. >> In which case the dlclose() is 100% guaranteed to be a noop anyway >> and >> can be safely removed. :) >> Seriously: consider the case where this symbol came out of a library >> that we *don't* link to statically. > > Why would I? > >> Then this would undeniably be a >> bug, because the library would be unmapped before the function could >> be called. Honestly, this code is just wrong. > > No it's not. I can't see a case where a program that relies so heavily > on OpenGL wouldn't link to the GL library at link time.
you are mixing static and dynamic linking. andy is talking about dynamic linking. i am not sure what you are talking about. --alex-- -- | I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active | | advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with | | automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion | | and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. | _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
