[PATCH] NTDLL atom.c documentation.
bunglehead at gmail.com
Sun Mar 6 13:45:24 CST 2011
On 3/6/2011 22:34, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 10:34 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
>> Hi Max,
>> + *
>> Please don't link to his site. As I said in an unrelated message to
>> wine-patches last week, he used disassembly when performing his
>> I wouldn't want to endorse such an effort implicitly by linking to
>> him: future Wine developers could be misled.
> The list of entry point names and the version history is all I am
> interested in and I believe that does not require disassembly, but if
> you can point me at another source for that information, I will be
> glad to use that instead.
What's a point to make such changes in a first place? I don't see how
it's useful to have automatically extracted partially filled function
names from sources (if it's a purpose of these documentation headers of
course). You always have sources, everything that might be useful for
development is in as code or comments for not-so-obvious parts.
What is really helpful for documenting behaviour that isn't documented
officially is writing test cases to show bugs or to prevent regressions.
More information about the wine-devel