At 11:23 PM 01/05/2001 +0200, you wrote:
<snip>
I believe the potential problems that this can cause are way more important than some claims that "there are some problems with library freeing". I've had that FreeLibrary() #if hack removed for a long time, and I haven't see any adverse effects (not that it's too easy to spot and attribute to this problem probably, though).
If you remember, there are glibc problems with dlclose. Alexandre Julliard said that it was not a problem because FreeLibrary was not doing anything. So I guess that people with 'old' glibc could have now new crashes.
Gerard
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:09:24AM +0200, gerard patel wrote:
At 11:23 PM 01/05/2001 +0200, you wrote:
<snip> >I believe the potential problems that this can cause are way more important >than some claims that "there are some problems with library freeing". >I've had that FreeLibrary() #if hack removed for a long time, >and I haven't see any adverse effects (not that it's too easy to spot >and attribute to this problem probably, though).
If you remember, there are glibc problems with dlclose. Alexandre Julliard said that it was not a problem because FreeLibrary was not doing anything. So I guess that people with 'old' glibc could have now new crashes.
Well, do you really think we should severely punish people with new versions in order to make it work on rather outdated versions ? ;-))
(yes, people with old versions still have the same "unfreed handle" punishment, of course, but that's not the point, is it ?)
And you could always state that people who are using Linux should be accustomed to heavy upgrading anyway... (ok, I know, that one's a bit risky)
-
Andreas Mohr -
gerard patel