Re: [xml] The issue around LoadLibrary on Windows

[Nikolay Sivov <bunglehead gmail com>]

On 7/23/2012 17:23, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Patrick Gansterer wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:16:48 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> > > * Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > >   C.f. the bug Fix windows unicode build
> > > >   https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=638650
> > > >
> > > > and the previous discussions here:
> > > >
> > > >   http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2008-February/msg00094.html
> > > >
> > > > now that the release is done, can we have a final decision on this.
> > > > As I understand it, LoadLibraryW takes a wchar_t* parameter, while
> > > > internally we are using only a char * (or xmlChar *) so it makes
> > > > no sense to try to call LoadLibraryW, and instead of using the
> > > > macro LoadLibrary which can only break build, calling LoadLibraryA
> > > > seems to be the simplest.
> > >
> > > It is not clear to me that building libxml2 with UNICODE defined is a
> > > sound idea if libxml2 is not designed for that
> >
> > Since it's not designed for UNICODE builds it should ignore the UNICODE
> > define. But it doesn't at the moment, because the define is used indirectly
> > by LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress.
GetProcAddress is not affected by this, procedure names are always C 
strings.
> > Ignoring would allow "UNICODE applications" which need to compile libxml2 in
> > their project too, adding the UNICODE define for the whole project and don't
> > need to undefine it for the libxml2 part.
> How would that "ignore the UNICODE" work?  Defining UNICODE will cause
> the API to do different things.
This define only controls macros so if you want LoadLibraryW nothing 
stops you to use it directly,
that's how ignoring works - you use -A, or -W versions directly.