[fpc-pascal] Re: linux: should we
hard-codeversionedorunversioned shared libraries in our apps?
Marco van de Voort
marcov at stack.nl
Thu Aug 16 09:52:25 CEST 2012
In our previous episode, Ludo Brands said:
> Making it easier for the programmer to specify the library he wants will put
> a halt on "this discussion returning in some way or the other every 6-9
> months". What is recurring in these discussions also is the non- or
> badly-documented ibase60dyn.initializeibase60('whatever.so'), or equivalent,
> being brought up at one stage as "the" solution that should make an end to
> the discussion. So if a libraryfilename property would only solve the
> recurring discussions and miscomprehensions (assuming that is a shared
> objective) then it would already be a big step forward.
It won't. More importantly, it cannot be ifdeffed easily.
In the case of using multiple dlls (and thus multiple addresses per
function), how will you deal with the current procedural interface btw
(based on global procvar's)?
More information about the fpc-pascal