[RFC] 16 bit functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> writes:

> 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.

Ah, so you want to change internal functions too?  I don't think I
agree with that.

> 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.

I don't think uglifying the function names just to make the tool
easier is a good trade-off. There are ways of doing the analysis by
using the linker, and that's much better than an approach based on
function names.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com