[PATCH] netio.sys: Remove WINAPI on static functions where not needed.
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> --- dlls/netio.sys/netio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c index 53d74f994db..fe73b06b978 100644 --- a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c +++ b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static void WINAPI send_receive_callback(TP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE *instance, void *s unlock_socket(socket); } -static NTSTATUS WINAPI do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) +static NTSTATUS do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) { struct wsk_socket_internal *s = wsk_socket_internal_from_wsk_socket(socket); struct wsk_pending_io *io; -- 2.20.1
On 6/29/20 18:51, Francois Gouget wrote:
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> --- dlls/netio.sys/netio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c index 53d74f994db..fe73b06b978 100644 --- a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c +++ b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static void WINAPI send_receive_callback(TP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE *instance, void *s unlock_socket(socket); }
-static NTSTATUS WINAPI do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) +static NTSTATUS do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) { struct wsk_socket_internal *s = wsk_socket_internal_from_wsk_socket(socket); struct wsk_pending_io *io;
I don't think it matters much, but is it really an improvement? If we call a single helper function from WINAPI function, which in turn calls just WINAPI functions, isn't it cleaner to keep the same calling ABI to potentially reduce the number of register saves?
On Jun 29, 2020, at 11:00 AM, Paul Gofman <pgofman(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
On 6/29/20 18:51, Francois Gouget wrote:
Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> --- dlls/netio.sys/netio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c index 53d74f994db..fe73b06b978 100644 --- a/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c +++ b/dlls/netio.sys/netio.c @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static void WINAPI send_receive_callback(TP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE *instance, void *s unlock_socket(socket); }
-static NTSTATUS WINAPI do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) +static NTSTATUS do_send_receive(WSK_SOCKET *socket, WSK_BUF *wsk_buf, ULONG flags, IRP *irp, BOOL is_send) { struct wsk_socket_internal *s = wsk_socket_internal_from_wsk_socket(socket); struct wsk_pending_io *io;
I don't think it matters much, but is it really an improvement? If we call a single helper function from WINAPI function, which in turn calls just WINAPI functions, isn't it cleaner to keep the same calling ABI to potentially reduce the number of register saves?
For a static function, the compiler can choose a non-standard ABI for the function call, to potentially completely avoid register spill. I don't know if it does or not, but an explicit calling convention could prevent such optimizations. Best to let the compiler choose. -Ken
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020, Paul Gofman wrote: [...]
I don't think it matters much, but is it really an improvement? If we call a single helper function from WINAPI function, which in turn calls just WINAPI functions, isn't it cleaner to keep the same calling ABI to potentially reduce the number of register saves?
This check was originally created because gcc had a bug on the Mac which caused it to mishandle 'static WINAPI' functions in some cases. Ken actually provided the following explanation at the time: | On the Mac, WINAPI (and other declspecs) include the | force_align_arg_pointer attribute. With -O2 optimization (actually | -funit-at-a-time, implied by -O2) the compiler may change the calling | convention used by non-exported functions to take arguments via | registers rather than on the stack. The prologue generated for | force_align_arg_pointer clobbers one of those registers (and hence | one of the arguments). That was 12 years ago mind you so presumably gcc has been fixed since then. But this does hint that the compiler may indeed adjust the calling convention to optimise things. Also note that static functions that are exported through vtables or other pointer passing methods are not impacted because the compiler is smart enough to realise it cannot change the calling convention at will. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke
participants (3)
-
Francois Gouget -
Ken Thomases -
Paul Gofman