"Paul Bryan Roberts" pbronline-wine@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It appears that GetNamedSecurityInfoExA signature doesn't match the MSDN/PSDK one. Also it's a common practice to simultaneously add both A and W versions, and add prototypes to an appropriate .h file.
Ah, right you are, thanks.
I guess that should have read 'most obviously incorrect'.
I cannot find any reference to GetNamedSecurityInfoEx with or without the A or W on http://www.msdn.microsoft.com. I have looked several times over the last six months or so. Is there another MSDN somewhere ?
That's the one. I made the statement that GetNamedSecurityInfoEx doesn't match the MSDN/PSDK signature just looking at the existing GetNamedSecurityInfo one. It appears that there are some unofficial GetNamedSecurityInfoEx docs, but if you are using them, you should clearly point out to teh source in the patch comment, and not copy the API description from that source.
Does simple uncommenting of GetNamedSecurityInfoExA/W stubs in the .spec file help? Or the installer actually calls the APIs?
GetSecurityInfoExW and (there is no stub for) GetSecurityInfoExA have prototypes in include/aclapi.h. Would that be an appropriate .h to add prototypes for GetNamedSecurityInfoExA and GetNamedSecurityInfoExW to ?
I guess so.
If you would like I could add a stub for GetSecurityInfoExA too. One patch or two ?
A single patch is fine.