[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: wine-devel
Subject: Re: rpc_H_PL9
From: Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani () redhat ! de>
Date: 2002-10-31 17:04:20
[Download RAW message or body]
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:55:10AM -0600, Greg Turner wrote:
> On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:05 am, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> > -UINT WINAPI I_RpcWindowProc( HANDLE hWnd, UINT Message, UINT wParam,
> > ULONG lParam)
> >+UINT WINAPI I_RpcWindowProc( void *hWnd, UINT Message,
> > UINT wParam, ULONG lParam )
> >
> > That's totaly broken. It's a problem in winapi_check and not in your
> > code. Well, their is a problem in your code too, i would change
> > HANDLE to HWND.
> >
> > bye
> > michael
>
> Before I change it back on your advice, are you /sure/ about this?
>
> o rpcrt4 compiles STRICT, so how broken can the conflation of
> HANDLE and void* be? (HWND is DECLARE_HANDLE()'ed so I could see
> your point there.)
HANDLE is a void* therefor "compatible" to any other pointer, that's why
you don't get a warning.
> o from the Microsoft Platform SDK headers (October '02):
>
> ./rpcdcep.h-728-RPCRTAPI
> ./rpcdcep.h-729-unsigned int
> ./rpcdcep.h-730-RPC_ENTRY
> ./rpcdcep.h:731:I_RpcWindowProc(
> ./rpcdcep.h-732- IN void * hWnd,
> ./rpcdcep.h-733- IN unsigned int Message,
> ./rpcdcep.h-734- IN unsigned int wParam,
> ./rpcdcep.h-735- IN unsigned long lParam
> ./rpcdcep.h-736- ) ;
>
> so, technically, isn't void* a /better/ choice?
*Sigh* a HWND should be HWND but m$ seems to have decided to do it in an
other way. I would say resend the patch but please change the Changelog.
bye
michael
--
Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199
System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH Email: mstefani@redhat.com
Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/
D-70178 Stuttgart
[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic