Hi Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:03:04AM CET: > Den 2010-01-12 21:19 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > >* Peter Rosin wrote on Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:00:17AM CET: [... long and nice explanation ...]
> >That sounds like we may simply need to document that the client code > >needs to employ locking so that libltdl functions are not called > >simultaneously as function set X, X being? > > See above, that would require all other threads to be stopped during the > ltdl interaction, which is a wee bit heavy handed... > > With this fix, we can say that client code should not /set/ the error > mode during calls to ltdl, which is much less limiting (at least on up > to date OSes, i.e. those w/ GetErrorMode). > > But the impact of all this is not really that big, let's drop the patch > if you think it's too pedantic. I just wanted to do the best possible > thing, and the patch isn't exactly intrusive... The patch is fine with me. I really just wanted to understand it. Please apply. BTW, does the new reference to kernel32.dll mean that the code will break on 64-bit Windows? Thanks, Ralf