On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 09:31:37AM -0500, Vincent Béron wrote:
> Le dim 06/02/2005 à 09:01, Mike Hearn a écrit :
> > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:37:08 -0600, Rob Shearman wrote:
> > > Yeah, it seems strange, but I have a test program here that shows it is
> > > 32-bits application-side for proxies/stub
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 12:37:08 -0600, Rob Shearman wrote:
> Yeah, it seems strange, but I have a test program here that shows it is
> 32-bits application-side for proxies/stubs.
There's all kinds of brokenness going on in their variant marshalling, eg
some types are mapped seemingly at random to ot
Vincent Béron wrote:
Le sam 05/02/2005 à 12:53, Rob Shearman a écrit :
Vincent Béron wrote:
Since the typedef patch to widl, typedef enum foo {A, B} FOO; was
rejected by get_type_vt (unknown-type: 13).
Changelog:
A RPC_FC_ENUM16 is a VT_I2.
Are you sure about this? Elsewhere RPC_FC_E
Le sam 05/02/2005 à 12:53, Rob Shearman a écrit :
> Vincent Béron wrote:
>
> >Since the typedef patch to widl, typedef enum foo {A, B} FOO; was
> >rejected by get_type_vt (unknown-type: 13).
> >
> >Changelog:
> >A RPC_FC_ENUM16 is a VT_I2.
> >
> >
>
> Are you sure about this? Elsewhere RPC_FC_E
Vincent Béron wrote:
Since the typedef patch to widl, typedef enum foo {A, B} FOO; was
rejected by get_type_vt (unknown-type: 13).
Changelog:
A RPC_FC_ENUM16 is a VT_I2.
Are you sure about this? Elsewhere RPC_FC_ENUM16 is equivalent to a
VT_I4 or VT_UI4 (although it is actually only 16-bits on
