On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/5/2010 12:16 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2010 2:03 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess filling in the EXTENSION_CONTROL_BLOCK with their addresses is >>>> not the only way an app gets addressibility .../? >>> >>> Oh, hold up. I think you are right on this, that these aren't expected to >>> be >>> available in the namespace by name :) >> >> I agree ;) >> >> The first MS doc I found for one of the callbacks after your first >> post was vague enough that I could imagine you were right, but if I >> look at enough search hits I can find some MS writer that says exactly >> what I want to read (which is at least a little more reassuring). > > If you want to recommit,
just did, a few minutes ago > I'd preface these four with cbfnXxx or regfnXxx to make > them look a little less suspiciously like exports. If you like I'm happy to > recommit your patch with that change, go for it > since you backed it out on my foolishness :) oh, well
