"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alexandre Julliard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it would
>> be better to try to take loadorder into account, though I admit it's
>> not trivial to do.
>
> Any idea how to do it without breaking DLL separation?
A possibility would be to u
"Alexandre Julliard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem I see is that this will bypass the loadorder config, and
> retrieve the version of the native dll in all cases.
I see.
> I think it would
> be better to try to take loadorder into account, though I admit it's
> not trivial to do.
Any
Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changelog:
> Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Try to avoid loading 16-bit DLLs into memory for accessing
> version info, this might lead to undesired side effects like
> loading a bunch of other 16-bit DLLs.
The problem I see is
