IStorage* vs. LPSTORAGE vs. winapi_check

Marcus Meissner marcus at
Wed Aug 17 15:06:40 CDT 2005

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:13:46AM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> [...]
> >>>So LPSTORAGE16 would be more fitting I think.
> >>
> >>You mean in the documentation?
> >
> >In the documentation I guess it is ok.
> Hmm, now I see that IStorage16 and LPSTORAGE16 are defined in 
> dlls/ole32/ifs.h and the structures they point to probably don't have 
> the same layout as their 32bit equivalents. So it would probably make 
> more sense to refer to those types in the documentation. Would the 
> attached patch be ok?

The structs have the same source layout (same function order, same
arguments), but different calling conventions (32 stdcall vs 16 bit).
I have to define them differently in WINE at least.

Its ok.
> (LPOLECLIENTSITE16 is not defined yet in ifs.h or elsewhere but I guess 
> that will come)

When it is needed ... the program I have currently does not need further
OLE handholding.

Ciao, Marcus

More information about the wine-devel mailing list