Nope. Maintaining a list of base addresses implies some intimate knowledge of the size of the code segment, which we aren't privy to, and will change over a modules' lifetime based on the type of compilation and whether it draws in static or dynamic libraries.
It also presumes perl is installed - something others have criticized me before. That's why we've settled on awk. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "G�nter Knauf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:52 PM Subject: Re: BaseAddress.ref needed? Hi Bill, > My only problem is that I don't want to even try maintaining such a beast. > IMHO, it's better if they express their /BASE:"0xnnnn0000" directly. I'm also too lazy, so I made a quick hack in perl which could do the beast for us. My idea is using a file modules.def which defines the Apache shipping modules, and a second mymodules.def which is appended when present. modules.def ships with Apache and everyone who is using own modules has only to maintain a small mymodules.def with the modules he uses. So you can reorder, comment out, insert modules and make a gap just as you like, the script does the rest. The module definition is simply the name and the bytes separated by comma. What do you think? Guenter.
