Antw.: ntdll: Revert 33b0f0edffa0c8a06b4ee8831c92fdc373f83ece.

[André Hentschel]

I would love to see such a tool, i could use it for some actctx tests in ntdll

Gesendet mit meinem HTC

----- Reply message -----
Von: "Saulius Krasuckas" <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt>
An: "Alexandre Julliard" <julliard(a)winehq.org>
Cc: <wine-devel(a)winehq.org>
Betreff: ntdll: Revert 33b0f0edffa0c8a06b4ee8831c92fdc373f83ece.
Datum: Do., Nov. 17, 2011 18:49


On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The test requires a PE binary because obviously we can't test PE 
> protections on Unix binaries. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just 
> build a crosstest:
>
> $ wine ntdll_crosstest.exe info.c
> info.c:1296: Test failed: mbi.Protect is 0x8, expected 0x4

IIRC, some of tests already craft minimal PE binaries in manual way.
So it would be nice to have some tool inside the tree to generate PEs 
independetly, no?

Several years ago I've tried testing GetStdHandle() from within two PE 
binaries with different header flags set (IMAGE_SUBSYSTEM_WINDOWS_[GC]UI).  

For a start I have copied some code of manual PE crafting to build PE 
header.  Then there came .text section's order.  I realized it's 
sufficient to write small assembler file, run it through the gas 
crosscompiler, disasm it and parse the results to have _not only_ binary 
data for rebuilding PE, but also symbolic one.

I wrote some awk-script then to convert .S file into C-function this way.  
With it it was easy to adjust options for crosscompiling gas/ld tools to 
get PE with needed structure.

But maybe there is point in creating some universal in-tree tool?  Or 
integrate the functionality into winegcc (or else) so as not to depend on 
a crosscompiling suite but still have readable and easy changeable source.

Guys, what do you think?

S.