COM Enhancement patch

Ove Kaaven ovehk at
Fri Nov 15 09:39:24 CST 2002

On 14 Nov 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> Christian Costa <titan.costa at> 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.

Though it's not really in my interest to, I suppose I could comment: if
you study the MS definitions in ddrawi.h hard enough, then you can
conclude that this particular overhead exist in real DirectDraw interfaces
as well (so perhaps Direct3D 8 broke so hard with earlier versions to get
rid of this overhead). But I still agree with your objection - apps using
newer (more powerful) interfaces generally expect better performance, and
thus ought to get less overhead than older interfaces (and that's how it
is in WineX). But then again, that overhead is probably negligible
compared to other factors.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list