Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [cfinck] 31298: Revert 31292, 31294 and 31297. Every change I try for fixing the build in one component breaks the build for another component. winebuild wasn't synchronized completely to the Wine version anyway, and the cur

[Steven Edwards]

On Dec 18, 2007 6:03 AM, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>   I merged it, taking in account winebuild's changes
> (using output()
>  function for example), so in 31300 it seems to work correctly.
>
>  I didn't really understood that AJ's message - Wine does not need
>  stubs as stubbed functions at all, but rather want all of them to be
>  manually implemented in a standalone .c file as stubs? or? 
As we discused on IRC he wants to do away with pseudo-stubs or at
least does not think they should be used in a PE build. I tend to
agree a function should either be implemented, fully stubbed or not
there at all unless an application is proven to need it. Needless
stubbing results in breakage when an application calls
GetProcAddress/LoadLibrary and would normally fail with grace if the
function is not there. Instead it can hit one of these fake stubs,
assume its safe to keep working and blow up on you.

As for your other question about decoration in mangled symbols for
stdcall functions I am not quite sure I understand it. The only
decorated functions I saw in the spec file were all cdecl. There were
others that are exported variables and some stdcall functions but they
did not have decoration unless I just missed it.

-- 
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