20 Nov
2010
20 Nov
'10
3:26 p.m.
Hi,
Considering that:
- The code to throw out INIT sections isn't in trunk, so _nothing happens_ when a
function is made INIT or not.
- There were already many INIT functions in NTOSKRNL and the kernel worked fine
- 49463 only added INIT_FUNCTION to the HAL
- A later revision by Timo added INIT_FUNCTION to win32k, and that worked fine as well
Don't you think it's a bit, pardon my language, braindead, to revert INIT_FUNCTION
in NTOSKRNL, as your patch did? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply revert
INIT_FUNCTION *just* in the HAL, which is what 49463 added? Why remove it from NTOSKRNL,
where it always worked? Why _not_ remove it from Win32k, if you think INIT_FUNCTION is
what's wrong? Your "fix" makes absolutely no logical sense from _any_ point
of view (as usual).
On a more serious note, don't you think it's strange that merely placing code in a
section (which right now isn't dropped, or messed with, in any way), would cause
problems in the OS? Isn't it immediately obvious to you that this is a red herring or
that the compiler is broken? Especially since the revision only causes problems for _some_
people? For example, it works for me, and I even have a local change that _throw out_ init
code.
Please learn some basic rational logic methodologies, the scientific method, and software
engineering processes.
-r
Hi,
finally this commit won't be reverted (unless someone explicitly asks for it) as it
brings testman back and shows quite important bugs.
Feel free to find a nice bugfix instead.
WBR,
P. Schweitzer
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev