Hi, Eric Pouech wrote: >this patch is ugly as hell... Please qualify. To me, - data[3] = (DWORD_PTR)dev; + parms.open.lpstrElementName = dev; looks more robust than before: - no magic offsets, - no casts that may silence warnings.
The one #ifdef WIN64 is a pure performance optimization on Win32. The other one with the TRACE() is indeed ugly, but I don't feel it's safe to call debugstr_w() on misaligned data in Wine64. Even if it were, printing data[3] as string may be wrong, because it may be data[4] (+5) that holds a pointer, not (3+4). Therefore I decided to renounce to print string contents on 64bit, despite their value in the logs. > and it still believe we can do the MCI >parser without knowing about MCI structures internals What do you mean? Quite to the contrary, the parser depends on knowing the internals of some commands (like MCI_OPEN) as well as the convention about the return value as 2nd (+3rd) slot after the callback. The parser bridges the gap between the resource definition files winmm_res.rc that are now in git and are known to work well with 32bit and the mixed DWORD/DWORD_PTR MCI_..._PARMS definitions whose correctness has been (partially) validated by tests. What we don't know is whether Win64 introduced a different winmm_res.rc. I'd sure would be pleased if somebody could describe whether there have been changes to the resources to accommodate 64bit pointers in MS-Windows. Everybody, please visit bug #22146 if you can contribute such knowledge. (Part of) my patch is needed even if there were (thanks to lack of magic offsets). Regards, Jörg Höhle
