[erlang-questions] port driver naming

[Michael Truog]

On 6/25/19 9:06 PM, Serge Aleynikov wrote:
> Yes, I've worked around the issue with the compile-time defines that 
> are different for the 32 and 64 bit architectures.  However, it's not 
> entirely clear why there's a requirement for the driver name to match 
> the file name.  It seems that it would be more flexible to allow them 
> to be different.
My impression is that it is beneficial to have the extra validation that 
the build artifact matches the appropriate content.  That could be more 
important when you have more variations that provide the same source 
code in different dynamic library files (even for the same architecture, 
multiple files).  However, the same constraint doesn't exist for NIFs 
and due to that inconsistency it may be hard to justify.

Best Regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20190626/53da54b7/attachment.htm>