Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > > > or something? > > > > I prefer `something' :-) > > > > How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? > > Done! Thanks. It works find now. > -- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:01:23AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > > or something? > > I prefer `something' :-) > > How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? Done! -- ___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \ \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/ home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key: http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
RE: Problem with ltdl.h
Oops, sending my previous mail just trigger our mail server to notify me of
the other mails :-)
Please forgive the unneeded noise.
Bernard
PS: BTW renaming the struct to "struct lt_dlhandle_struct" or seems better
than renaming again the typedef, as lt_dlhandle is conveying the right
semantics (usually a HANDLE is a pointer to a descriptor of where to find
something).
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: 'Alexandre Oliva'; Kevin Atkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Problem with ltdl.h
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:53 PM
> > To: Kevin Atkinson
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > in C++
> > >> >struct lt_dlhandle
> > >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
> > >> >typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
> > >>
> > >> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name
> overridden by
> > >> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
> >
> > > So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
> >
> > Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make
> me change my
> > mind about it :-)
> >
> > > It does NOT appear
> > > to be valid C++ code
> >
> > I've just managed to compile:
> >
> > typedef struct foo foo;
> >
> > with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
> > why G++ is complaining about it.
>
> YES! this is valid; what's NOT is
>
> typedef struct foo* foo;
> ^___ notice the '*' there.
>
> canopus{SoftWrks}: echo "typedef struct foo* foo;" > tst.cpp
> canopus{SoftWrks}: gcc -c tst.cpp
> tst.cpp:1: conflicting types for `typedef struct foo * foo'
> tst.cpp:1: previous declaration as `struct foo'
> canopus{SoftWrks}:
>
> >
> > If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
> > when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
> > have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
> > problem, so that it can at least be documented.
>
> ALL C++ comilers should choke on this. AND as I say in my
> previous mail it is VERY misleading to typedef a pointer to
> something with the same name as this something.
>
> Of course, as I've also said earlier, I don't have the latest
> CVS libtool, so I take for granted what the initial message
> said, that is the offending code is
> typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle;
>
> If there is no '*', all is OK of course.
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
> Bernard Dautrevaux
> Microprocess Ingenierie
> 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> 92400 COURBEVOIE
> FRANCE
> Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
RE: Problem with ltdl.h
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:53 PM
> To: Kevin Atkinson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h
>
>
> On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > in C++
> >> > struct lt_dlhandle
> >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
> >> > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
> >>
> >> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
> >> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
>
> > So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
>
> Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my
> mind about it :-)
>
> > It does NOT appear
> > to be valid C++ code
>
> I've just managed to compile:
>
> typedef struct foo foo;
>
> with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
> why G++ is complaining about it.
YES! this is valid; what's NOT is
typedef struct foo* foo;
^___ notice the '*' there.
canopus{SoftWrks}: echo "typedef struct foo* foo;" > tst.cpp
canopus{SoftWrks}: gcc -c tst.cpp
tst.cpp:1: conflicting types for `typedef struct foo * foo'
tst.cpp:1: previous declaration as `struct foo'
canopus{SoftWrks}:
>
> If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
> when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
> have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
> problem, so that it can at least be documented.
ALL C++ comilers should choke on this. AND as I say in my previous mail it
is VERY misleading to typedef a pointer to something with the same name as
this something.
Of course, as I've also said earlier, I don't have the latest CVS libtool,
so I take for granted what the initial message said, that is the offending
code is
typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle;
If there is no '*', all is OK of course.
Bernard
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Nov 29, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord
>> > or something?
>>
>> I prefer `something' :-)
>>
>> How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'?
> I will assume you ment.
> typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct * lt_dlhandle;
Right. Oops :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On 29 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > > or something? > > I prefer `something' :-) > > How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? I will assume you ment. typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct * lt_dlhandle; -- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord
> or something?
I prefer `something' :-)
How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:53:00PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > in C++ > >> > struct lt_dlhandle > >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit > >> > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle; > >> > >> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by > >> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does. > > > So are you saying that you are not going to fix it. > > Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my > mind about it :-) > > > It does NOT appear > > to be valid C++ code > > I've just managed to compile: > > typedef struct foo foo; > > with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand > why G++ is complaining about it. > > If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example, > when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may > have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the > problem, so that it can at least be documented. I introduced this problem when getting rid of the `_t' suffixes, where the line used to say: typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle_t; which is fine because the explicit typedef has a different name to the implicit C++ typedef. Now that the _t has gone, a C++ compiler has two conflicting definitions for lt_dlhandle: typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle_t; typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle_t; The first implicit one created by the compiler and the second from the code. I must say that I don't care much for `typedef foo *foo', and would be happy to remove the inderection and fix all of the exported functions. I fear this will break the API too radically -- e.g.: lt_dlhandle *lt_dlopen (...); Since the struct is an incomplete type anyway, and used like this only to remove the typecasting inside libltdl that would be necessary if we used: typedef lt_ptr *lt_dlhandle_t; How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord or something? Cheers, Gary. -- ___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \ \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/ home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key: http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It does NOT appear
>> > to be valid C++ code
>>
>> I've just managed to compile:
>>
>> typedef struct foo foo;
> Yes that will compile but
> typedef struct foo * foo
> Won't, which is what the line in question looks like.
Oops. I stand corrected. We do indeed have a problem.
And now that you've pointed out the difference, I went back to read
the C++ Standard and was reminded that the name of a class (or struct)
cannot be `typedef'ed to a type other than the class (or struct) it
names. So `typedef struct foo foo' is valid, but `typedef bar foo' is
invalid unless bar is a synonym with `struct foo'.
So, we indeed have to go fix ltdl.h.
Thanks for your persistence :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It does NOT appear > > to be valid C++ code > > I've just managed to compile: > > typedef struct foo foo; Yes that will compile but typedef struct foo * foo Won't, which is what the line in question looks like. --- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > in C++
>> >struct lt_dlhandle
>> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
>> >typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
>>
>> However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
>> another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
> So are you saying that you are not going to fix it.
Not really. I'm just asking for better arguments to make me change my
mind about it :-)
> It does NOT appear
> to be valid C++ code
I've just managed to compile:
typedef struct foo foo;
with g++, version 2.95.2. So it *is* valid C++. I don't understand
why G++ is complaining about it.
If some widely used C++ compiler fails to compile it, for example,
when ltdl.h is in its standard header-file search path, then we may
have a good reason to change it. But first I want to understand the
problem, so that it can at least be documented.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > in C++ > > struct lt_dlhandle > > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit > > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle; > > However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by > another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does. So are you saying that you are not going to fix it. It does NOT appear to be valid C++ code, thus when the header file is used in C++ programs it prevents them from being compiled. --- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in C++
> struct lt_dlhandle
> automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit
> typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle;
However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by
another definition of the name, which is what the `typedef' does.
> I don't know from where this problem comes; I'm using a quite recent
> CVS-libtool (from beginning of october I think) and do not have this
> problem.
Maybe this is only a problem in system headers? (GCC makes
distinction between headers in standard search PATHs and those
introduced by -I switches)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
RE: Problem with ltdl.h
> -Original Message- > From: Kevin Atkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > > > I just updated to the latest CVS version of libtool and I > noticed two > > problems. > > > > 1) Even though I defined LT_NON_POSIX_NAMESPACE I still > can't get lt_ptr_t > > to work. After looking at the header file I discovered the > really is > > LT_FUBAR_NAMESPACE. Either the docs or the header files need to be > > changed > > > > 2) I keep on getting... > > /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: conflicting types for > `typedef struct > > lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle' > > /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: previous declaration as `struct > > lt_dlhandle' > > > > I tried the affending line on egcs 1.1 gcc 2.95 and the gcc > included in > > RedHat 7.0 and all of them give the same error. > > I should add that this works with C code but not in C++ code. > Ooooh... Now I understand better: this diagnostic is due to the fact that in C++ struct lt_dlhandle automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle; Then the explicit typedef struct lt_dlhandle* lt_dlhandle; defining the TYPENAME lt_dlhandle to be a pointer-to struct lt_dlhandle creates a conflict. I must say that although this is perfect C code, it's nevertheless highly questionable... It's kinda #define ADD(a, b) ((a) - (b)) ^ | This is not an error and was intentional to show some perfectly legal code that I would never accept if a programmer do that in my team ;-0 To be coherent, either the explicit typedef should read typedef struct lt_dlhandle* lt_dlhandle_ptr; or typedef struct lt_dlhandle* lt_dlhandle_handle; or the struct name is not good and everything should read: typedef struct lt_dl* lt_dlhandle; but clearly here we have a naming problem :-) I don't know from where this problem comes; I'm using a quite recent CVS-libtool (from beginning of october I think) and do not have this problem. HTH Bernard Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel:+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax:+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: Problem with ltdl.h
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > I just updated to the latest CVS version of libtool and I noticed two > problems. > > 1) Even though I defined LT_NON_POSIX_NAMESPACE I still can't get lt_ptr_t > to work. After looking at the header file I discovered the really is > LT_FUBAR_NAMESPACE. Either the docs or the header files need to be > changed > > 2) I keep on getting... > /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: conflicting types for `typedef struct > lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle' > /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: previous declaration as `struct > lt_dlhandle' > > I tried the affending line on egcs 1.1 gcc 2.95 and the gcc included in > RedHat 7.0 and all of them give the same error. I should add that this works with C code but not in C++ code. --- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Problem with ltdl.h
I just updated to the latest CVS version of libtool and I noticed two problems. 1) Even though I defined LT_NON_POSIX_NAMESPACE I still can't get lt_ptr_t to work. After looking at the header file I discovered the really is LT_FUBAR_NAMESPACE. Either the docs or the header files need to be changed 2) I keep on getting... /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: conflicting types for `typedef struct lt_dlhandle *lt_dlhandle' /usr/local/include/ltdl.h:143: previous declaration as `struct lt_dlhandle' I tried the affending line on egcs 1.1 gcc 2.95 and the gcc included in RedHat 7.0 and all of them give the same error. Thanks. --- Kevin Atkinson kevina at users sourceforge net http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/ ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
