On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Ozkan Sezer :
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Vincent R. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:58:13 +0200, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>> I'm a bit amazed that the prototype for VirtualProtect() is known to the
>>>> compiler but the definition of DWORD is not.. In any case, it should be
>>>> fixed easily by changing DWORD into unsigned int which is what a
>>>> DWORD is always defined as. And PR 39063 is still open anyway.
>>>> --
>>>> Ozkan
>>>
>>> Yes you are right about the fact VirtualProtect is defined and not DWORD so
>>> something is wrong with my includes
>>
>> That is my guess..
>>
>>> However you are wrong about DWORD definition it has always be defined
>>> like this :
>>>
>>> typedef unsigned long DWORD, *PDWORD, *LPDWORD;
>>>
>>> at least windows.
>>>
>>
>> A DWORD on windows is an unsigned 32 bit integer, therefore even
>> if you use long, it won't matter because long is 32 bits for both win32
>> and for win64.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ozkan
>>
>
> Ozkan,
>
> Not, really. Because if the function was prototyped before by DWORD
> (for mingw/cygwin on x86/x64), we get a warning about different
> prototypes. For the compiler unsigned long and unsigned int are
> different types.
>
That was the reason I had specifically changed that int into a DWORD
and if the reporter's headers do have a problem, it still should stay that
way.
--
Ozkan
