Hi,

> I share your sentiment, but in this case it is impossible to know,

> unless we can find it documented somewhere. From a binary signature
> standpoint, a function with 0 args is identical in STDCALL and CDECL,
> because it's not mangled in the DLL either (unlike lib), and the only

> source we have is that header that uses it.

> So it doesn't really matter, just that the mismatch looked wrong (either
> both STDCALL or both CDECL is fine in my eyes, but not an authoritative
> opinion).

Oh, I see, perhaps I shouldn't have changed it. I'm not sure if I did the right thing here, especially since it's undocumented.

Giovanni had already signed off on the WINAPI version of this but I saw that it didn't get committed so I thought maybe Alexandre saw something wrong that neither one of us saw. Maybe I was being too impatient, but I wanted to also submit the stubs and those depend on this patch.

I made a decision I thought was right based on my understanding of cdecl and stdcall, but I'm still inexperienced in Wine development. I apologize if I came off as disrespectful towards Giovanni.