Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:07:08 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: dlsym discussion..
Message-ID: <20010604100708.B8962@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <006801c0ecd5$db486d80$2b0b070a AT cam DOT virata DOT com> <00ef01c0ecd6$41559c60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <00ef01c0ecd6$41559c60$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:10:51PM +1000

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:10:51PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Moreton" <amoreton AT virata DOT com>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Looking at this from the Win32 side of things, perhaps you should look
>at
>> the ToolHelp library, in particular CreateToolHelp32Snapshot(),
>> Module32First(),
>> and Module32Next().
>>
>> This will give you a list of all modules for the current process.
>Checking
>> the
>> module handle against the list maintained by cygwin should give the
>> information
>> you need.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> AndyM
>>
>
>Neato. That combined with before/after dlopen will also let me grab the
>dependant libraries that are automatically loaded as well. That won't be
>fool proof, but it's better than nothing. I suppose we could fall back
>to walking the entire list anyway, but that would likely return
>erroneous results :-[
>
>You wouldn't happen to know of an equivalent function for NT 4.0 would
>you? (MSND lists that function as win95+, Windows 2000+.

Look in pinfo.cc.  Both sets of functions are already being used.

cgf