ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: CodeMonk on 28 Aug 2007 13:22 Betov wrote: > > The normal way (call 'DllName.FunctionName') is not enough? > Ok, that would be the normal way in RosAsm and not a method I'm generally familiar with. The point of all of this had less to do with accessing a function in a DLL and more to do with accessing other *useful* things. - Scott
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 13:29 CodeMonk <jascwa(a)yahoo.com> �crivait news:aNYAi.67480$pu2.53585 @bignews1.bellsouth.net: > Betov wrote: >> >> Which "deficiency"? >> > > The one where if there is some functionality I need, that you don't > provide, :)) Sorry, but i don't provide 'Functionalities' in the way you seem to thing it. Nor does an Assembler. > then I can utilize the notion of wrapping a useful static > library into a DLL and use it whether you like it or not :) Why not? But if you have the Source, why would you create a DLL with it, instead of pasting it inside your source? Or maybe you mean, having a .lib at hand, no source, or Sources in HLL, and meaning to reuse the .lib? If "yes" ---> Yes, of course. Was it not what DLLs have been invented for? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 13:36 CodeMonk <jascwa(a)yahoo.com> �crivait news:oRYAi.67485$pu2.6981 @bignews1.bellsouth.net: > Betov wrote: > >> >> The normal way (call 'DllName.FunctionName') is not enough? >> > > Ok, that would be the normal way in RosAsm and not a method I'm > generally familiar with. The point of all of this had less to do with > accessing a function in a DLL and more to do with accessing other > *useful* things. Sorry, i don't understand a word of what you are saying. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: SpooK on 28 Aug 2007 13:50 On Aug 28, 12:22 pm, CodeMonk <jas...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Betov wrote: > > > The normal way (call 'DllName.FunctionName') is not enough? > > Ok, that would be the normal way in RosAsm and not a method I'm > generally familiar with. The point of all of this had less to do with > accessing a function in a DLL and more to do with accessing other > *useful* things. > > - Scott The implementation of such a method may not be popular, but it is nothing new... and nothing his assembler pioneered. Using this kind of name decoration helps alleviate issues with the same or similarly named functions across different libraries. It also clearly states that to the person reading the code that the function call is external. You could also use such a decoration to avoid having to link with object files, just to "verify" the existence of such functions in the corresponding dynamic library. However, with the existence of static libraries, it becomes clear that supporting the object file method is better for establishing a consistency in development.
From: CodeMonk on 28 Aug 2007 13:59
Betov wrote: > >> Betov wrote: >>> Which "deficiency"? >>> >> The one where if there is some functionality I need, that you don't >> provide, > > Sorry, but i don't provide 'Functionalities' in the way > you seem to thing it. Nor does an Assembler. I understand that our definition of what is or isn't an assembler differs. But certainly were not talking about assemblers right now. >> then I can utilize the notion of wrapping a useful static >> library into a DLL and use it whether you like it or not :) > > Why not? But if you have the Source, why would you create > a DLL with it, instead of pasting it inside your source? Why bother - it's already assembled and ready to go. > Or maybe you mean, having a .lib at hand, no source, or Yes, I've run into that before. > Sources in HLL, and meaning to reuse the .lib? I hadn't considered that, but yes, that could be useful too. > If "yes" ---> Yes, of course. Was it not what DLLs have > been invented for? Indubitably. But certainly not the point of any of this. - Scott |