Re: Return type of dlsym

["Wojtek Lerch" <yyyyyy@xxxxxxx>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Wojtek Lerch said:
> > Splitting dlsym() into two functions would be a more elegant way, but it
> > might break some existing code more seriously.  Personally, I think that
> > doing both is the best solution.
> 
> It's just struck me that the split has another benefit: if the symbol is in
> the library, but not with the type expected by the programmer, having
> separate functions allows the problem to be diagnosed. [...]

Only in the limited sense where by "type" you mean the Boolean choice
beween a function and a variable.  If the symbol has the expected "type"
(in the above sense) but the wrong type (in the C sense), you're still
in trouble.