You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2000/12/09 19:26:03 UTC
Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Bill and others interested,
Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
Bill
Re: Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> > From: trawick@bellsouth.net [mailto:trawick@bellsouth.net]On Behalf Of
> > Jeff Trawick
> >
> > "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
> >
> > > Bill and others interested,
> > >
> > > Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
> > > in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
> > > bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
> >
> > Is this to say that the linker binds on the symbol name instead of the
> > ordinal number?
>
> Heck yeah :-)
>
That would be most cool! Is this by default or do you need to twiddle settings in the compiler? I
could have sworn that Ken Parzygnat and I did some testing that showed linking by ordinals, which is
why we added the stupid .def files (with ordinals) in the first place. Bleh...
Bill
RE: Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: trawick@bellsouth.net [mailto:trawick@bellsouth.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeff Trawick
>
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>
> > Bill and others interested,
> >
> > Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
> > in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
> > bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
>
> Is this to say that the linker binds on the symbol name instead of the
> ordinal number?
Heck yeah :-)
RE: Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: trawick@bellsouth.net [mailto:trawick@bellsouth.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeff Trawick
>
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
>
> > Bill and others interested,
> >
> > Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
> > in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
> > bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
>
> Is this to say that the linker binds on the symbol name instead of the
> ordinal number?
Heck yeah :-)
Re: Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
> Bill and others interested,
>
> Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
> in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
> bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
Is this to say that the linker binds on the symbol name instead of the
ordinal number?
--
Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Win32 ordinal binding concerns
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> writes:
> Bill and others interested,
>
> Please look at the current 2.0 library and executable binaries
> in the depends.exe utility. You will observe only one module is
> bound by ordinal, and that is ws2_32.dll (which is a MS problem.)
Is this to say that the linker binds on the symbol name instead of the
ordinal number?
--
Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...