[RFC] 16 bit functions

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at rogers.com
Sun Mar 16 09:42:10 CST 2003

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


More information about the wine-devel mailing list