Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It turns out that a lot of the functions my script complains should
> have the -noname or not have the -noname property should:
> * really not have a name at all
> * or be marked as -private
>
> Is this something we want to do?
No, I don't think
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[...]
Yes I think they are very useful, though I wouldn't suggest blindly
fixing things based on the reports since I suspect that at least in
some cases we have wrong ordinals and this will cause complaints about
the wrong functions.
It turns out that
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> > Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> -noname vs. ordinal internal consistency
> >> -
> >>
> >> This check verifies that all APIs which have th
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-noname vs. ordinal internal consistency
-
This check verifies that all APIs which have the '-noname' property,
also have an explicit ordinal. This is the only check wh
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -noname vs. ordinal internal consistency
> -
>
> This check verifies that all APIs which have the '-noname' property,
> also have an explicit ordinal. This is the only check which does not
> depend on dumps of t
The recent problems with -noname in shell32.spec got be to dig up an old
script I had which reads spec and dumpbin files and processes them. I
then retrofitted it so it could do some hopefully useful checks for this
kind of issues.
So this script works by comparing the output of winedump or dum
