On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:31:36AM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Marcus Meissner wrote: > [...] > >The LPSTORAGE layout is definitely not the same. > > What do you mean? I just replaced 'IStoreage *' with 'LPSTORAGE' and > since the LPSTORAGE declaration is 'typedef IStorage *LPSTORAGE;' the > layout should be the same. Now if the original prototype was wrong for > some other reason that's another issue.
For the 32bit functions use of "LPSTORAGE" is fine. For the 16bit functions I do not know. The interface itself is the same, but the calling conventions really are not. So this is more of a programming detail. > >So LPSTORAGE16 would be more fitting I think. > > You mean in the documentation? In the documentation I guess it is ok. > >Also when not using "SEGPTR" I get conversion warnings and it clarifies > >a bit what exactly the type of the argument is. > > Do you mean it would be better not to use 'SEGPTR' in the prototypes? No, I meant that I did switch to SEGPTR because of it. Anyway, its fine as is. :) Ciao, Marcus
