Subject: RE: More relocatable dll woes
From: [email-masked] ("Ismael Jurado")

11 Jul 1997 19:28:31 -0700
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Original-To: "Jon Thackray" <[email-masked]>
Original-Cc: <[email-masked]>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

----------
> De: Jon Thackray <[email-masked]>
> A: [email-masked]
> Asunto: More relocatable dll woes
> Fecha: jueves 10 de julio de 1997 16:36
> 
> It would appear that the export table of a dll, and the set of defined
> symbols from a .lib file, don't always match up
> ----skipped------

I think you're mixing two different concepts:

     00000000 T _AddAtomA@4
 
this is the "mangled" name of the function. The number after the @ is the
number of words of the parameters of the function (or something like this,
I can't remember...) and it is this way because the fuction was compiled as
an __stdcall fucntion whitch also prepends an underscore at the beginning.
This "mangled" name is produced by the compiler to tell the linker that it
is a __stdcall function (as you see in the lib file), but once the code
it`s compiled, the right name ( C functions are not mangled!) is produced
in the DLL or EXE file, that it is what you see here:

    1    0   AddAtomA  (000079CA)

Ismael Jurado
[email-masked]
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".