some unimplemented COM stuff
Malte.Starostik at t-online.de
Wed May 30 02:15:21 CDT 2001
On Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2001 07:46, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:32:19AM +0200, Malte Starostik wrote:
> > Well, that was just the first thing that came to mind. Assembler was the
> > second. I somehow didn't even think of a plain function pointer - well
> > yes, I am more used to C++ than C :)
> > Of course it's kinda hard to initialize a C++ method pointer from a
> > vtable offset. Anyway, it should be implemented in winelib and not in my
> > app, so it's not feasible after all.
> > But that doesn't matter now that I realized a full implementation will
> > probably need assembler as the number of arguments is virtually
> > unlimited. So an array of parameters that is copied to the stack via
> > inline assembler is IMHO the way to go. Will give it a try.
> Why can't you use the WINE supplied macros INTERFACE_FUNCTION?
> They should be defined to the correct C++ method calls.
Because all I have is an IDispatch pointer and a vtable offset to the method.
Calling Invoke itself is not a problem at all. The method to be called by
Invoke isn't known at compile time.
Wars don't determine who's right, only who's left.
More information about the wine-devel