COM Enhancement patch
marcus at jet.franken.de
Fri Nov 15 02:15:24 CST 2002
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:35:00PM -0800, WINE wrote:
> Christian Costa <titan.costa at wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > I've sent a patch for ddraw COM management, I did not have any
> > comments and the patch has been rejected.
> > Could someone tell me if something is wrong or lacking?
> Well, I was hoping some of the COM experts would comment on that. If
> I understand it right you are avoiding writing some thunking routines
> for older interfaces, at the cost of an extra pointer access in every
> function. I'm not convinced it's a good trade-off, but I'd like to
> hear other opinions.
I do not really see the need for it either.
The implementation functions know the interface they get passed, so
the offset to the vtable ptr within the object is constant and can very
easily be calculated by the compiler.
As for increased function sharing and reduced thunks usage...
True, but the number of functions is not really annoying or problematic.
More information about the wine-devel