Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- From: "Hallvard Vassbotn" <hallvardvassbotn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:43:52 +0100
"Avatar Zondertau" <avatarzt@xxxxxxxxx (please reply to newsgroup)> wrote in
message news:440d3b02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The main problem here would be to get the pointers you need for the
implementation. You need pointers to any private members that you want
to access from the replacement.
This can be done through hacks, such as taking the pointer from a map
file after compilation and placing it in a constant. This doesn't seem
very desirable.
http://hallvards.blogspot.com/2004/06/hack-5-access-to-private-fields.html
.
- References:
- Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- From: Arthur Hoornweg
- Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- From: Robert Marquardt
- Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- From: Arthur Hoornweg
- Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- From: Avatar Zondertau
- Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fastcode CompareMem B&V 2.0.0
- Next by Date: using FastMM
- Previous by thread: Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- Next by thread: Re: Looking for a way to patch *methods* rather than functions.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|