On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:51, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:26, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2010 1:13 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 17:42, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 17:24, Craig Ringer<craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/12/2010 7:17 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now, that's annoying. So clearly we can't use that function to
>>>> determine which version we're on. Seems it only works for "image help
>>>> api", and not the general thing.
>>>>
>>>> According to
>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms679294(v=vs.85).aspx,
>>>> we could look for:
>>>>
>>>> SysEnumLines - if present, we have at least 6.1.
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't see any function that appeared in 6.0 only..
>>>
>>> Actually, I'm wrong - there are functions enough to determine the
>>> version. So here's a patch that tries that.
>>
>> Great. I pulled the latest from your git tree, tested that, and got much
>> better results. Crashdump size is back to what I expected. In my test code,
>> fcinfo->args and fcinfo->argnull can be examined without problems.
>> Backtraces look good; see below. It seems to be including backend private
>> memory again now. Thanks _very_ much for your work on this.
>
> Ok, great. I think that leaves us at least complete enough to commit -
> we can always improve things further as we get some more real world
> testing.
Actually, looking through it again just before commit, I can't help
but think the whole code about loading the DLL from different places
is unnecessary. The windows DLL search order *always* has the
directory of the EXE first, followed by either system dirs or CWD
depending on version.
Any reason not to just call LoadLibrary once?
That makes the patch look like attached.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/