load library problem

[Eric Pouech]

Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On September 14, 2003 03:07 am, Eric Pouech wrote:
> 
>>Another issue could be the (.so) dependencies on wine-calendar.dll.so
>>which cannot be resolved.
> 
> 
> I think you mean calendar-wrap.dll.so. Hmm, that would be very odd.
> Do you see any problem with these:
> 
> [dimi at dimi calendar]$ ldd calendar.exe.so
>         libwine.so => /usr/local/lib/libwine.so (0x40029000)
>         libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40040000)
>         libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40044000)
>         libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x400f8000)
>         libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x4011a000)
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
> [dimi at dimi calendar]$ ldd calendar-wrap.dll.so
>         libwine.so => /usr/local/lib/libwine.so (0x402f5000)
>         libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x4030c000)
>         libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x403bf000)
>         libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x403e2000)
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
>         libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x403ea000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
> 
> It seems to me calendar-wrap.dll.so has the same dependencies
> as calendar.exe.so (in a bit different order, does it matter?)
> 
after some more exchanges with Dimi, it turned out that this was caused 
by a too short buffer in relay32/builtin32.c at BUILTIN32_LoadLibraryExA 
(dllname was way to short).
Alexandre, any reason for keeping this at 20 chars ?

A+

-- 
Eric Pouech