7030249: Eliminate use of LoadLibrary and other clean-ups

Kelly O'Hair kelly.ohair at oracle.com
Tue Mar 29 15:44:43 UTC 2011

On Mar 29, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:

> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> I'll admit that I'm not following this C code horribly well, but overall it does look much cleaner.
>> As well as I can follow it, it looks good.
>> In the Makefile, could we get some comments as to why the lib's are needed and also some
>> comments as to what the delayload means and why it is important? I could guess, but I'd prefer
>> some makefile comments to help the next poor soul looking at it. ;^)
> Thanks Kelly. I'll add a comment to make this clearer athough this isn't really new as there are other places in the build where /delayload is used too.

Yes, I realize that. But in general, some of the past build issues were created because we have done a poor job
of documenting what the makefiles are doing, so I'm just trying to encourage more makefile comments from
now on. Sometimes the reasons for doing things can help determine a better future decision on removal or change.
Just a sentence on why the delayload is needed here for this library, not what the delayload feature is.
Or maybe a simple sentence on why these libraries are needed for this library and not all libraries.


> -Alan.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list