Re: [RFC] 16 bit functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun"  writes:
> Most 16 bit functions already adhere to this naming convention,
> but there are still a few that don't. Alexandre, would renaming
> such functions be acceptable? If so, I can add yet another
> janitorial task...

I don't know, I guess that depends how many need to be changed. Do you
have a list?  In any case, note that we don't have to rely on
winapi_check for that; 16-bit functions should be split to separate
files so that we can have --disable-win16 do the right thing, and then
cross calls will be found by the linker.