|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Depends. Are we talking a COM supporting one? There are three flavors of
> dll, one has internal entry points that you need a linking table to get
> at. I.e., there is no stored internal data on what is there. Full COM
> supporting ones (one ones using any such variation on the concept)
> include an internal table and some standard method of "asking" what all
> the calls, variables, types, etc. are. The third is a kind of hybred,
> where "some" of the internals are exposed via the interface, but others
> have been intentionally designed to only allow linking using the
> header/table used to inform a compiler what they are.
The situation is far more complex than I imagined.
Apparently it is notionally possible to construct a DLL which actually
contains no executable code at all, only data. (Although I highly doubt
anybody *does* this...)
Man, the more you look, the more complex it gets! :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |