Re: widl: filter_func isn't used when USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS is defined

[Rob Shearman]

2009/2/6 Christoph von Wittich <Christoph(a)apiviewer.de>:
> diff --git a/tools/widl/proxy.c b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> index 0dcb737..88c0e53 100644
> --- a/tools/widl/proxy.c
> +++ b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> @@ -122,10 +122,12 @@ static void init_proxy(const statement_list_t *stmts)
>   print_proxy( "    void             *This;\n");
>   print_proxy( "};\n");
>   print_proxy( "\n");
> +  print_proxy("#ifndef USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS\n");
>   print_proxy("static int __proxy_filter( struct __proxy_frame *__frame
> )\n");
>   print_proxy( "{\n");
>   print_proxy( "    return (__frame->_StubMsg.dwStubPhase !=
> PROXY_SENDRECEIVE);\n");
>   print_proxy( "}\n");
> +  print_proxy("#endif /* USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS */\n");
>   print_proxy( "\n");
>  }

I think a better solution to this would be to use proxy_filter as the
expression in the RpcExcept statements.

Alexandre, what do you think?

-- 
Rob Shearman

widl: filter_func isn't used when USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS is defined

[Alexandre Julliard]

Rob Shearman <robertshearman(a)gmail.com> writes:
> 2009/2/6 Christoph von Wittich <Christoph(a)apiviewer.de>:
> > diff --git a/tools/widl/proxy.c b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> > index 0dcb737..88c0e53 100644
> > --- a/tools/widl/proxy.c
> > +++ b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> > @@ -122,10 +122,12 @@ static void init_proxy(const statement_list_t *stmts)
> >   print_proxy( "    void             *This;\n");
> >   print_proxy( "};\n");
> >   print_proxy( "\n");
> > +  print_proxy("#ifndef USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS\n");
> >   print_proxy("static int __proxy_filter( struct __proxy_frame *__frame
> > )\n");
> >   print_proxy( "{\n");
> >   print_proxy( "    return (__frame->_StubMsg.dwStubPhase !=
> > PROXY_SENDRECEIVE);\n");
> >   print_proxy( "}\n");
> > +  print_proxy("#endif /* USE_COMPILER_EXCEPTIONS */\n");
> >   print_proxy( "\n");
> >  }
>
> I think a better solution to this would be to use proxy_filter as the
> expression in the RpcExcept statements.
>
> Alexandre, what do you think?

We could do that, though it wouldn't help with the server case. A more
generic solution could be to add a dummy reference somewhere in the
exception macros to make the compiler believe it's used. I certainly
agree we should avoid the extra #ifdefs.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org