Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> get_dll_info doesn't appear to be suitable for this purpose. We don't
> know what the base address of the EXE is and the call doesn't return
> the required size for the filename.
Well, you have to extend it a bit to support that, but it's better than
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> ---
>> dlls/ntdll/process.c| 20 +++-
>> dlls/ntdll/tests/info.c | 36
>> server/process.c| 31 +++
>> server/protoco
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---
> dlls/ntdll/process.c| 20 +++-
> dlls/ntdll/tests/info.c | 36
> server/process.c| 31 +++
> server/protocol.def |9 +
> 4 files c
