: Why are we using libverto again

Nathaniel McCallum npmccallum at redhat.com
Thu Jul 7 14:34:50 EDT 2011

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:15 -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu> wrote:
> > I understand that.  And based on your description of a simple
> > intermediary, that made some sense.  However the complexity of the
> > intermediary has far exceeded what I was expecting.  I'll admit that my
> > original simple vision wouldn't have worked, but I think we should all
> > carefully consider what we got and whether it's worth the cost.
> I don't think it's terribly complicated.  It's simple, actually.  The
> one problem identified so far is the use of dladdr(), and I think both
> uses of it are unnecessary (clever, but unnecessary).

Thanks for your vote of cleverness. ;)

The only platform that doesn't support dladdr() is win32, but it has
something extremely similar which I've already implemented. Whether
dladdr() stays around in the long-term or not I could care less. But it
needs to be pointed out that the so-called "problem" isn't actually a
problem at all. Far more problematic is the subtle behavior differences
between libraries, but I've more or less solved that now.


More information about the krbdev mailing list