On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:53 AM Björn Schäpers <g...@hazardy.de> wrote: > > Am 23.01.2024 um 23:37 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:33 PM Björn Schäpers <g...@hazardy.de> wrote: > >> > >> Am 03.01.2024 um 00:12 schrieb Björn Schäpers: > >>> Am 30.11.2023 um 20:53 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor: > >>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 2:55 AM Björn Schäpers <g...@hazardy.de> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Björn Schäpers <bjo...@hazardy.de> > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes https://github.com/ianlancetaylor/libbacktrace/issues/53, except > >>>>> that libraries loaded after the backtrace_initialize are not handled. > >>>>> But as far as I can see that's the same for elf. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, but I don't want a patch that loops using goto statements. > >>>> Please rewrite to avoid that. It may be simpler to call a function. > >>>> > >>>> Also starting with a module count of 1000 seems like a lot. Do > >>>> typical Windows programs load that many modules? > >>>> > >>>> Ian > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Rewritten using a function. > >>> > >>> If that is commited, could you attribute that commit to me > >>> (--author="Björn > >>> Schäpers <bjo...@hazardy.de>")? > >>> > >>> Thanks and kind regards, > >>> Björn. > >> > >> I noticed that under 64 bit libraries loaded with LoadLibrary were missing. > >> EnumProcessModules stated the correct number of modules, but did not fill > >> the > >> the HMODULEs, but set them to 0. While trying to investigate I noticed if > >> I do > >> the very same thing from main (in C++) I even got fewer module HMODULEs. > >> > >> So I went a different way. This detects all libraries correctly, in 32 and > >> 64 > >> bit. The question is, if it should be a patch on top of the previous, or > >> should > >> they be merged, or even only this solution and drop the EnumProcessModules > >> variant? > > > > Is there any reason to use both patches? Seems simpler to just use > > this one if it works. Thanks. > > > > Ian > > This one needs the tlhelp32 header and its functions, which are (accoridng to > the microsoft documentation) are only available since Windows XP rsp. Windows > Server 2003. > > If that's no problem, and in my opinion it shouldn't be, then I can basically > drop patch 4 and rebase this one.
I don't see that as a problem. It seems like the patch will fall back cleanly on ancient Windows and simply fail to pick up other loaded DLLs. I think that is fine. I'll look for an updated patch. Thanks. Ian
