Re: [xml] The issue around LoadLibrary on Windows

[Patrick Gansterer <paroga paroga com>]

Am 23.07.2012 um 16:23 schrieb Earnie Boyd:

> 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.
> > 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.

The API does the _same_ thing! There is only a difference which function get called
LoadLibraryA vs. LoadLibraryW. Since it only works with LoadLibraryA only, we can
write LoadLibraryA instead of LoadLibraryW directly. Using the functions directly
"ignores" the UNICODE define (since it's not used any more).

-- Patrick