This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
- From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gp at familiehaase dot de>
- To: "Peter Ekberg" <peda at axentia dot se>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:55:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
- Organization: Esse keine toten Tiere
- References: <90459864DAD67D43BDD3D517DEFC2F7D7058@axon.Axentia.local>
- Reply-to: "Gerrit @ cygwin" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
Am Dienstag, 10. August 2004 um 22:58 schriebst du:
> I wrote:
>> Reid Thompson wrote:
>> > well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and
>> > your original post works
>> > $ ./load
>> > pseudo_stub.dll ok
>> > foo.dll ok
>> That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for
>> pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some juggling, the same thing is ok?
> Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing.
> pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails.
> Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad
> spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely works, that
> I have tried myself.
You have checked what error 998 actually is?
#define ERROR_NOACCESS 998L
I cannot believe that it depends on the name of a DLL whether it can
be dlopened or not. There must be another error with your test!
Consider this (with source from your first posting):
$ gcc -shared -o pseudo_stubs.dll foo.c
$ gcc -o load load.c
foo.dll dlopen: Win32 error 126
$ cp pseudo_stubs.dll foo.dll
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html