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
From: "Andy Moreton" <amoreton AT virata DOT com>
To: "'Robert Collins'" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
        <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: dlsym discussion..
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:08:00 +0100
Message-ID: <006801c0ecd5$db486d80$2b0b070a@cam.virata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <023c01c0ec36$7da728f0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Importance: Normal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of Robert
> Collins
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: dlsym discussion..
>
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> > > Thoughts? I'm a bit hesitant at trying to second guess what
> > > dll's have been implicitly loaded by the Win32System, but if
> > > that information is readily available to cygwin, I'm happy to
> > > code up a iterating dlsym().
> >
> > cygwin keeps a list of DLLs loaded via dlopen.  It could register
> > other modules via dll_entry() but that is not a foolproof method
> > due to load order problems.
>
> BTW: There's no rush on this for me - it doesn't affect what I'm doing -
> I'm just interested in seeing if I can find a way to provide the unix
> dlsym behaviour. Likewise no-one in userland is complaining about this,
> so I hope it won't suddenly become an issue.
>
> Hmm. Well it seems to me there are two sets of dlls: implicitly loaded
> dll's that we were linked against, and
> "modules"/"plugins"/whateveryouwanttocallthem that get dlopened.
>
> Both should behave the same, but the key difference is that implicitly
> loaded dll's should be visible to a dlopen(NULL,);dlsym() combination,
> whereas "modules" will give us access to a path name. Thus tracking via
> dlopen()'s isn't likely to provide a comprehensive list.

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

--
Virata, Unit 230 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 4WB, UK
http://www.virata.com/  Tel: +44 1223 707400  Fax: +44 1223 707447