[RFC] 16 bit functions

Alexandre Julliard julliard at winehq.com
Sun Mar 16 11:16:02 CST 2003

"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

More information about the wine-devel mailing list