Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [pschweitzer] 49662: [NTOSKRNL] [HAL] Disable INIT_FUN

[Pierre Schweitzer]

Hi,

I know that r49463 only added INIT_FUNCTION to HAL, but I reverted both, just to be sure.
I can get back ntoskrnl as they don't seem to be concerned.

Now, on other remarks, considering that:
- This has never be presented as a fix (but as a test)
- Win32k INIT_FUNCTION is not defined for GCC (only for MSVC)
- Testbot is now stuck in ARM³ MM bugs
- You are away after breaking trunk (as usual)
- Said "_Some_ people" include our testbot and some of our devs
- Being mean won't fix anything

Only ntoskrnl will get its INIT_FUNCTIONS back.
If GCC is broken, then we should only use that feature on MSVC, as it's done with
win32k.
If you are unhappy with such measures, keep in mind that you have commit access also for
fixes.

Btw, www.itworksforme.com is a pretty bad reference.

Regards,
P. Schweitzer

>   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
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev