cirrus_laguna.o vs cirrus_laguna_drv.o (was: Re: User problems with the DLLoader)

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 08:47:03PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2005 20:38, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 04:59:25PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > What this won't do, of course, is change the behaviour of the loader for
> > > existing installations, which appears to be "load whichever module
> > > readdir returns first that matches one of the loader filename patterns". 
> > > But there's nothing to be done there.
> >
> > Unfortunately this kind of falls on its arse with cirrus_alpine.o and
> > cirrus_laguna.o, given they don't match any standard patterns, but is there
> > any reason they shouldn't be _drv.o, like everything else?
> 
> Yuck.  Presumably this also fails with riva128.
> 
> We can either fix the Imakefiles to generate uniform names, or else add 
> another stanza to FindModule to search for the module name unadorned (which 
> the patch currently doesn't do but which is historical loader behavior).  
> Either one really, probably adding the extra three lines to FindModule is 
> best for now.

I would vastly prefer to drag the drivers into line with the rough standard, but
I suppose we could do both?  Maybe someone could shed some light into why these
drivers don't have _drv appended.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050127/97d8f5d7/attachment.pgp>