Hi,
Alex Ionescu wrote:
> You should always use memset and void HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY.
Could you please tell why HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY should not be used?
It is used in many places, so if something wrong with RtlAllocateHeap, maybe
better to fix it?
Thanks,
Dmitry
hi,guys:
I don't know if it is proper to ask such a question here. I'm sorry if
I break some rules.
why IOCTL_DISK_GET_DRIVE_GEOMETRY_EX fail in windows 2000 and succeed in
windows xp and greater version?
or how can I get a disk(whatever,ATA,SCSI,USB )'s real size(including
additional sectors) in a easy way in windows 2000, just like there is such a
function,
__int 64GetDiskRealSize(HANDLE hDisk);
Could anybody help me?
Waiting for reply.
Thank you!
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM, <jimtabor(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
> Author: jimtabor
> Date: Mon Dec 8 23:58:23 2008
> New Revision: 37952
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=37952&view=rev
> Log:
> - Add CP_UNIXCP for CP_ACP, this will help cross tests.
>
> Added:
> trunk/reactos/include/reactos/wine/winnls.h (with props)
> +#ifndef __WINE_WINNLS_H
> +#define __WINE_WINNLS_H
> +
> +#define CP_UNIXCP CP_ACP
Rather than keep the include_next brokeness, perhaps we should add the
define to wine/port.h and include that in any offending source file.
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Hi folks,
yesterday a user shows me a program what is working properly under windows,
but not working under reactos. It was an open source program and it was easy
to figure out the problem. It was an invalid win-api-call (wrong parameter
value). Due to this situation I would like to ask one question. How
compatible reactos should be? Even fault compatible?
Matthias
--
Matthias Kupfer Telefon +49 (0) 371 236 46 52
Wilhelm-Firl-Straße 21 Mobil +49 (0) 160 859 43 54
09122 Chemnitz
Steven Edwards wrote:
> We discussed something like this years ago. It would be nice if every sort
> of legacy API that has any sort of hacks for brokeness as part of its
> implementation, could be isolated and a simple recompile with something
> like a #define NO_LEGACY_WIN32 so you could recompile without the hacks.
> Not really that useful for the real world as you need the backward
> compatibility but it is a nice idea for embedded or non-normal windows
> targets like ARM.
I think this is like compiler warnings. Some checks are disabled by default
as they would cause more harm than good. But there is an option to enable
them. It will help to catch bugs in software.
>> It was already broken in r37496.
> Gdi is right Win32k is wrong.
I mean that GCC (by default) silently discards code like
if (i < 0) { ... }
where i is unsigned. So there was a bug in GDI...