Stubs in spec files

[Zebediah Figura]

On 02/02/2017 02:46 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> For what it's worth, the error message I get for the (one) 32-bit
>> function that I tested was identical. For 16 bit the stub gives me
>>
>> wine: Call from 0x7b43c26c to unimplemented function
>> compobj.dll16.COINITIALIZE, aborting
>> wine: Unimplemented function compobj.dll16.COINITIALIZE called at
>> address 0x7b43c26c (thread 0030), starting debugger...
>>
>> while the nonexistent one gives me
>>
>> err:fixup:apply_relocations No implementation for COMPOBJ.2, setting to
>> 0xdeadbeef
>> wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x0000dea8 at address
>> 0x101f:0x000017c3 (thread 0030), starting debugger...
>>
>> The latter is a bit less obvious, but my reasoning is that a "no
>> implementation" line should be enough of a red flag that the generic
>> exception (or other misbehavior) could still be as easily fixed.
> 
> For functions that are imported at link time, we can generate a stub or
> a dummy pointer, and print a warning. That's not the case for
> GetProcAddress, so the stub entries are still needed.
> 

Ah, I see; thank you for clearing that up.