Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-30 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Jon Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm, I think any programmer who thinks a static function in one of > the implementation files of a given dll can possibly be part of the > exported Win32 API has larger problems than just confusion over what > the API covers ... Static functions can def

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-30 Thread Dimitrie O. Paun
On September 29, 2003 05:31 pm, Jon Griffiths wrote: > But since you're adament, this should probably be made a janitorial > task; internal stdcall functions are currently used in other places > (5 other files in shlwapi, for example). It doesn't seem that much of a problem, a patch would be simpl

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-30 Thread Jon Griffiths
Hi, --- Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Precisely, this way it's obvious which functions are meant to be > used by Win32 apps and which are internal to Wine. Hmm, I think any programmer who thinks a static function in one of the implementation files of a given dll can possibly be

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-26 Thread Rolf Kalbermatter
Jon Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please don't do that. Internal functions should use standard C >> calling conventions. We don't care about two bytes of extra code. > >Can do. Is there any reason why not though? After all, the entire >Win32 api does it... Alexandre may have its reasons

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-25 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Jon Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Please don't do that. Internal functions should use standard C >> calling conventions. We don't care about two bytes of extra code. > > Can do. Is there any reason why not though? After all, the entire > Win32 api does it... Precisely, this way it's ob

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-25 Thread Jon Griffiths
Hi, > Please don't do that. Internal functions should use standard C > calling conventions. We don't care about two bytes of extra code. Can do. Is there any reason why not though? After all, the entire Win32 api does it... Cheers, Jon = "Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to co

Re: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-24 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Jon Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, they are called more than once in the file, so stdcall produces > smaller code (no need to duplicate the argument stack pops). Please don't do that. Internal functions should use standard C calling conventions. We don't care about two bytes of extr

RE: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-24 Thread Jon Griffiths
Hiya, > Should this not be #define szResLen (sizeof(szRes)/sizeof(WCHAR) - 1) ? Sorry, I must have dozed off. You are of course right, I'll resend in a minute. Good spotting! Jon = "Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come; Don't you sit around and waste this chance..." - Li

RE: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-24 Thread Jon Griffiths
Hiya, > Is there any reason for changing the calling convention of these > two functions? Yes, they are called more than once in the file, so stdcall produces smaller code (no need to duplicate the argument stack pops). Similarly any function thats only called once can be explicitly inlined for s

RE: shlwapi 405/406

2003-09-23 Thread Robert Shearman
Hi, Just a few comments on an otherwise good patch: > -static BOOL URL_JustLocation(LPCWSTR str) > +static BOOL WINAPI URL_JustLocation(LPCWSTR str) ... > -static LPCWSTR URL_ScanID(LPCWSTR start, LPDWORD size, > WINE_URL_SCAN_TYPE type) > +static LPCWSTR WINAPI URL_ScanID(LPCWSTR start, LPDWORD