Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Robert Shearman
Mike Hearn wrote: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/midl/midl/_robust.asp Interesting. I wonder how this affects the output. It changes the conformance descriptor in the type format string from 4 bytes to 6 bytes. I think we should worry about this sort of thing

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Mike Hearn
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/midl/midl/_robust.asp Interesting. I wonder how this affects the output. I think we should worry about this sort of thing when our DCOM code is actually mature enough that we can use it, though.

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Robert Shearman
Mike Hearn wrote: Stubless proxies are the only ones that are secure. Secure? This is news to me, how is interpretive marshalling more secure than generated code based marshalling? http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/midl/midl/_robust.asp Rob

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Mike Hearn
Stubless proxies are the only ones that are secure. Secure? This is news to me, how is interpretive marshalling more secure than generated code based marshalling? Or are we talking about different things ...

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Robert Shearman
Mike Hearn wrote: Yes, because it makes it easier to compare the output of midl and widl. Additionally, I hope that projects other than Wine can use widl too one day... Yeah, I'd vote for *not* following the exact output of MIDL in WIDL actually. - MIDL produces code that could compete in the

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Mike McCormack
Yeah, I'd vote for *not* following the exact output of MIDL in WIDL actually. I don't want to make WIDL produce exactly the same output as MIDL, but it's nice to have some of the lines line up so it can be compared easily. Mike

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-21 Thread Mike Hearn
Yes, because it makes it easier to compare the output of midl and widl. Additionally, I hope that projects other than Wine can use widl too one day... Yeah, I'd vote for *not* following the exact output of MIDL in WIDL actually. - MIDL produces code that could compete in the worlds ugliest cod

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-20 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, because it makes it easier to compare the output of midl and > widl. Additionally, I hope that projects other than Wine can use widl > too one day... Frankly I can't think of any project that would need that. It's just historical noise, far pointe

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-20 Thread Mike McCormack
Alexandre Julliard wrote: * use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies Is this really useful? __RPC_FAR will always be an empty define, even when building on Windows, and I doubt we'll want to add 16-bit support to widl... Yes, because it makes it easier to compare the output of midl and wi

Re: WIDL: use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies

2004-09-20 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ChangeLog: > * use __RPC_FAR attribute for pointers in proxies Is this really useful? __RPC_FAR will always be an empty define, even when building on Windows, and I doubt we'll want to add 16-bit support to widl... -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTE