"Roger Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am wondering why delete the CreateThread() code and refer all such
> requests
> to CreateRemoteThread()? It would appear to me that retaining the
> CreateThread()
> code in addition to and compliant with the patch changes would be more
> expeditious
>
---
From: "Alexander Yaworsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roger Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:15 AM
Subject: CreateRemoteThread and related stuff (patch)
> Hello
>
> This is a basic framework. Not finis
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>> Ick. That sounds really really complicated. I'd be tempted to go for
>> bringing back the service thread but I wasn't around when it was
>> busy causing pain so maybe I sound a bit blase about that :)
>
> Perhaps the old-timers c
Alexander Yaworsky wrote:
Hello
Well, not quite. You can open another handle to the process using
DuplicateHandle or something else, so you need to go via the server. The
simplest way to do this using Win32 is:
if (GetProcessId(handle) == GetCurrentProcessId())
You miss. It seems we rea
Hello
> There is no need to export __wine_is_current_process from ntdll and use
> it here when standard win32 apis will suffice.
> Well, not quite. You can open another handle to the process using
> DuplicateHandle or something else, so you need to go via the server. The
> simplest way to do t
Mike Hearn wrote:
There is no need to export __wine_is_current_process from ntdll and
use it here when standard win32 apis will suffice.
Oh yes, I was wondering why this was bothering me. I think you can
achieve the same effect like this:
if ((handle == (HANDLE)0x) ||
(handle == (HA
There is no need to export __wine_is_current_process from ntdll and use
it here when standard win32 apis will suffice.
Oh yes, I was wondering why this was bothering me. I think you can
achieve the same effect like this:
if ((handle == (HANDLE)0x) ||
(handle == (HANDLE) NtCurrentTeb(
Alexander Yaworsky wrote:
Hello
This is a basic framework. Not finished, not really tested -- just stable point. It does no harm for applications I'm using. I would
be glad to get some comments and suggestions.
Looks good so far, apart from a few comments below.
@@ -168,16 +137,68 @@
* Succes
Alexander Yaworsky wrote:
Hello
This is a basic framework. Not finished, not really tested -- just stable point. It
does no harm for applications I'm using. I would
be glad to get some comments and suggestions.
Looks OK to me but it's missing the most important part :) How are you
intending to ma
Hello
This is a basic framework. Not finished, not really tested -- just stable point. It
does no harm for applications I'm using. I would
be glad to get some comments and suggestions.
This patch does not contain files generated by tools/make_requests
Index: dlls/kernel/kernel_private.h
===
10 matches
Mail list logo
