From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301221544.AA19192@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: stubify calling stubedit
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:44:31 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <200301220802.JAA04634@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> from "Martin Stromberg" at Jan 22, 2003 09:02:11 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Charles said:
> > I've got mixed feelings about stubify calling stubedit.  Since we
> > are writing the stub it seems backwards to write it, then spawn 
> > another program to modify what we just wrote.  It would be much
> > nicer to modify the in memory copy of the stub before we wrote
> > it to the new file.  However, I guess this will be done very 
> 
> Yes. That was my first try. However I never managed to get the change
> into the right place. Too many offsets. You're welcome to do it. I
> think I might have that nonworking code somewhere. If I have it, I can
> send it to you. Do you want it?

No thanks - no time.  I've got to do the new merged DXE stuff first,
then more docs.  Much higher priority than optimizing working code.

Unless 2.04 schedule drags out I doubt I'd have time.  Thats why I
said OK with a little grumble :-)

P.S.  if you set client_stub_info pointer to stub_bytes+512 it should
work, but it would be worth validating...