Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle@t-systems.com a écrit :
Hi,
Eric Pouech wrote:
this patch is ugly as hell...
Please qualify. To me,
data[3] = (DWORD_PTR)dev;
parms.open.lpstrElementName = dev;looks more robust than before:
- no magic offsets,
- no casts that may silence warnings.
actually there are not magic offsets, but can be computed from the previous values written. the current parser can be better rewritten in a way were fields are written to in sequential order (currently, for example, return values are written at the end, which is not satisfactory) but I agree current that current parser can be improved
and it still believe we can do the MCI parser without knowing about MCI structures internals
What do you mean? Quite to the contrary, the parser depends on knowing the internals of some commands (like MCI_OPEN) as well as the convention about the return value as 2nd (+3rd) slot after the callback.
MCI_OPEN is kinda specific the others are not. it just uses that first parameter is callback, second is the returned type (which is described in the MCI table), then parameters, which are also described in the table. no nothing magic here
The parser bridges the gap between the resource definition files winmm_res.rc that are now in git and are known to work well with 32bit and the mixed DWORD/DWORD_PTR MCI_..._PARMS definitions whose correctness has been (partially) validated by tests.
to me what works are test (and packing) of MCI structures on 64 windows (but with native DLLs, hence using native MCI tables) what doesn't work is MCI parser (with builtin winmm) and same MCI structures but we never validated builtin MCI tables on windows...
What we don't know is whether Win64 introduced a different winmm_res.rc. I'd sure would be pleased if somebody could describe whether there have been changes to the resources to accommodate 64bit pointers in MS-Windows.
we just need a copy of 64bit winmm.dll. If someone could mail it to me privately, it would be rather easy to check. A+