VirtualProtect() fixup
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com
Fri Jun 8 15:24:34 CDT 2001
520053692817-0001 at t-online.de (Andreas Mohr) writes:
> What isn't the case ? Both fixups ? Or only one of these ?
The return value: NT returns a BOOL, 0 or 1.
I haven't checked the old protection behavior; but anyway this doesn't
belong in VirtualProtect, if we have to ignore the execute permission
it must be done consistently throughout the code.
> Well, to be exact, no application.
> I just found this out by accident.
That's what I suspected ;-)
> IMHO the probability that some applications exist that are too lazy
> to supply their own old_prot variable and that check the return value instead
> is rather high, so I think that patch is necessary.
We can't start breaking things based only on your suspicion that
someone somewhere will have used a feature that isn't documented at
all (plus there is a documented way of doing exactly the same
thing). If you have an app that needs it sure, otherwise we'll just
keep returning a BOOL, as the function is documented to do.
> Maybe we should add a winver check, though.
No thanks.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list