Thanks. So I'll stay with my current hand hacked .spec.c file. It does work at least.
My be we should define a new keyword in spec files, let's say "decorated" which implies stdcall and keeps the decoration on the export/import table. I'll look into it once I finish my current doing.
Free Life Boaz
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Boaz Harrosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have noticed that my .spec.c file is very different than your .spec.c file from above. I am using winebuild downloaded from source forge, as of 20031212.
Now if I use your suggested .spec file. I am missing the FooSTD altogether. If I remove one of the @8 than I am back to my old problem.
[Q-1] Why is my .spec.c file so different than yours? could you please check my command line switches? could you please send me your makefiles (command line) that produced above results.
Our spec file are different because my one is for Foo.dll, and yours is for fooapp.exe.
Anyway I'm attaching my sources and Makefiles. I simply integrated Foo.dll into Wine dll/ tree and hacked Makefiles accordingly.
And no, I didn't succeed linking with Foo.dll.so. Mainly because winebuild doesn't know how to resolve a non stdcall decorated symbol to a decorated one.
Let's wait for Alexandre and hear his opinion whether it worths the trouble adding support for linking with broken Windows DLLs.
