Eric Pouech wrote:
Eric Pouech wrote:
IMO, the Ui ones seem to be rather old (NT4 or something) whereas the
ones I'm talking about are more recent (XP), but seem better defined
(API wise). For example, only XP version seems to provide the wait for
debug object and continue APIs. That's why it
Eric Pouech wrote:
IMO, the Ui ones seem to be rather old (NT4 or something) whereas the
ones I'm talking about are more recent (XP), but seem better defined
(API wise). For example, only XP version seems to provide the wait for
debug object and continue APIs. That's why it seems to me more
in
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Sunday, December 18, 2005, 2:06:55 PM, Eric Pouech wrote:
The problem here is that we need handle to the debug object which we
don't have and don't have. And I haven't found how to get a handle to it
either.
NtCreateDebugObject
we already have a context object (for deb
Sunday, December 18, 2005, 2:06:55 PM, Eric Pouech wrote:
>> The problem here is that we need handle to the debug object which we
>> don't have and don't have. And I haven't found how to get a handle to it
>> either.
> NtCreateDebugObject
> we already have a context object (for debugger) in server,
The problem here is that we need handle to the debug object which we
don't have and don't have. And I haven't found how to get a handle to it
either.
NtCreateDebugObject
we already have a context object (for debugger) in server, it shouldn't
be too hard to implement it that way.
A+
--
Eric Pou
Sunday, December 18, 2005, 1:04:33 PM, Eric Pouech wrote:
> Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>> ChangeLog:
>> ntdll: Implement few Dbg* functions.
>> kernel32: Use new Dbg* functions instead of server calls.
>> +status = DbgUiDebugActiveProcess( hProc );
>> +
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
ChangeLog:
ntdll: Implement few Dbg* functions.
kernel32: Use new Dbg* functions instead of server calls.
+status = DbgUiDebugActiveProcess( hProc );
+status = DbgUiStopDebugging( hProc );
-if (self) DbgBreakPoint();
I wonder if we shouldn'
