[RFC] 16 bit functions

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On March 14, 2003 11:26 am, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> I don't know, I guess that depends how many need to be changed. Do you
> have a list? 

No, I'm afraid I don't. In particular, I noticed that the functions
in loader/ne/*.c don't have the 16 prefix, even if most/all of them
are 16 bit functions, AFAICS.

> 16-bit functions should be split to separate
> files so that we can have --disable-win16 do the right thing, and then
> cross calls will be found by the linker.

Right -- but how do we make sure we've split all 16-bit functions to
their own files? Once they are in the 16-bit only files (do we have
a consistent naming convention for those, so we know they are 16-bit?),
there's not that much benefit in renaming them, I agree.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we had these rules:
  Function names end in 16 IFF they are 16bit functions
  File names end in 16 IFF they get compiled out by --disable-win16
It makes it so much easier to spot problems by just scanning the
code, not to speak of the simplicity that it brings to any analysis
tool.

-- 
Dimi.