Hi, On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:24:02PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What do you mean by "delayed imports". When I defined, proper, the > > entire spec as actual functions, I got conflicts when I tried to > > define GetProcAddress. In any case, even then I'm going to need to > > call GetProcAddress (yes, I guess I can use the same strange macros to > > do that, or call the native NT function. I'd rather not do that, > > however). > > > > These problems are apparent in the experimental patch I sent > > (http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/11/0098.html). > > That patch builds just fine for me. You know, I'd really like to help > you, but this is very frustrating: I'm sure I could give you a > solution in 2 minutes if I actually saw the problem; instead of that > you waste your time trying to modify the generated .spec.c file, and I > waste my time trying to guess what error you are seeing. How about > sending me the exact code that fails, with the exact error messages? > > OK, in the meantime I'll try to continue guessing. I suppose you > called your implementation GetProcAddress, which of course makes it > impossible to call the kernel32 one. If that's the problem, you should > simply use a different name for your function, and do the mapping in > the spec file. So you do something like: Well, if he has such trouble getting the GetProcAddress call resolved properly, then why not instead not use the normal import mechanism, but getting the pointer to that problematic function manually by doing a pFunc = GetProcAddress(hModKernel32, "GetProcAddress"); ?
Awww, wait... something's borken here ;) Score: -255, insanely funny Andreas Mohr P.S.: you may say what you want, but that WAS my first idea, until I realized certain issues with that... ;) P.P.S.: who the §$&/! reenabled mail delivery for my wine-devel account? Oh well... it's about time to join the discussion again anyway :)
