Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:32:41 -0500
To: "'cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'" <cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: problem with fork/exec in Cygwin DLL called from non-Cygwin E XE
Message-ID: <20000302133241.F20207@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <779F20BCCE5AD31186A50008C75D99791716F3 AT SILLDN_MAIL1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.4i
In-Reply-To: <779F20BCCE5AD31186A50008C75D99791716F3@SILLDN_MAIL1>; from EFifer@sanwaint.com on Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 06:26:00PM -0000

On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 06:26:00PM -0000, Fifer, Eric wrote:
>"Chris Faylor" writes:
>>Since fork/exec are not aware of LoadLibrary calls, I am surprised that you
>>would see any success anywhere.  dlopen() may work better.
>
>I was using LoadLibrary in an attempt to emulate whatever
>Excel is doing.  The real goal is to be able to use 
>fork/exec/etc from Cygwin-capable DLLs called from Excel.

I don't see how you can ever do something like that.  fork, at least, relies
on being called when a process is starting up.

>>It doesn't know about
>>your use of LoadLibrary so it doesn't duplicate it.  Then, the code tries
>to
>>jump into func() which doesn't exist.
>
>Hmm ...
>
>Do you think adding a cygwin_record_dll() hook would be
>too ugly?

No, not at all.  I don't want to add to the current ugly dynamic DLL
handling code though.  It seems incredibly complicated (to me) for
something that AFAICT should be relatively simple.

Both Mumit and I have banged on the code but neither of us have been
brave enough to streamline or simplify it.

cgf