On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 22:27 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:24:03PM +0200, Lars Luthman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 22:13 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 04:50:13 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > I guess the port things aren't a good justification for the creation
> > > > parameters, you're right. The question, then, is what is the
> > > > recommended way for the host to provide functions to the plugin? That's
> > > > what Lars was originally seeking (and solves the above allocation
> > > > problem as well)
> > >
> > > I think that if it's provided as part of a HostFeature (so the plugin
> > > knows it exists and what it's called) it can be obtained using the OS's
> > > normal dynamic linking functions. I've not tried though.
> >
> > Do you mean that the plugin should dlopen the host? Wouldn't that
> > require some way to pass the path to the host program to the plugin (in
> > which case you might as well pass a function pointer directly)?
>
> I mean the linker should do it. If you dynamically build the plugin
> against a stub library and the host exports something with the same ABI, I
> /think/ the plugin should have the host's version of the function in its
> namespace.
Can't that cause all sorts of memory protection errors on systems that
do not support backlinking? On the other hand, if it works on Linux that
is good enough for me.
-- Lars Luthman PGP key: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 02 2006 - 04:15:03 EEST