[2/2] ntdll: Implement FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN and FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM support (take 6)

Dan Kegel dank at kegel.com
Tue Oct 6 21:20:43 CDT 2009

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev at web.de> wrote:
> Code, which is called very often, should produce as less overhead as
> possible.   I suggest to use "static inline".

I have 'static' already.  The compiler's probably better at
deciding when to use inline than we are, may as well
leave inline off unless we're sure it's faster.  (inline can cause
bloat...)  I haven't done the benchmarking to test whether
this change slows, say, an ls -lR down, but I suspect any
slowdown will be because of the extra syscall rather than
the lack of inline.

> Seperate implementations for fd and fname should also make a difference.

I had that originally, but it seemed duplicative.  Samba seems to
have similar unified helpers, so I went with that idea.

> Your code handle different parameter for the attr functions.
> Is it possible, that code, which is compiled for one ABI version can
> call the implementation of the other ABI version?

Not sure I follow.   Can you rephrase that?

> When Wine depends on libattr and libattr-dev after you Patch,
> all packagers should get this information.

It shouldn't; modern glibc handles the attr functions.  The libattr
checks are only for old distros.
- Dan

More information about the wine-devel mailing list