11 Dec
2009
11 Dec
'09
9:59 p.m.
I hope you can read English.
You no-devs are not supposed to challenge a coding change argument made by the person who
wrote the code with the argument being "I have no idea what I'm talking about but
you're wrong about how your own code should look like" and state "*we*
should do this instead."
On 2009-12-11, at 3:57 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo wrote:
i hope you dont mean we no-devs cant discuss stuff and even learn from you
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
Ergo, we may define them to correctly reflect the
EFLAGS register.
Who is "WE"? You're not even a DEV for this project!
However, but I think Alex is right that the compatible identifiers
should be retained.
EFLAG_SIGN and EFLAG_ZERO are used to compare flags in AH after LAHF,
and should be retained verbatim, since they are public (in NTDDK.H).
As for any MS EFLAGS_xx definitions, I'm not privvy and can't say.
Then shut up and don't post completely USELESS and wrong information.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev