Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com writes:
On 24.05.2017 9:50, Austin English wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
There are many functions that aren't sorted, I don't think this warrants a comment. If you have a script for this, you may want to maintain a list of exceptions inside the script instead.
I have to disagree. My plan is to find the functions that actually ordinals, and label them as such (i.e., @ stub foo -> 1 stub foo). We already have several other comments of dubious value, I'd argue this is just as helpful, if not more helpful that something like: https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/blob/HEAD:/dlls/setupapi/setupapi.spe...
The comment helps future readers understand why the sorting rules apply one way in one place, but the complete opposite in another. It's completely non-obvious which sorting mistakes are developer error, and which are Microsoft error and IMO should be documented. Keep in mind that not every developer has access to a windows machine (Testbot excluded), and may not be easily able to run winedump on some windows dlls.
For modules with "unexpected" order you can have a comment on top of spec file, mentioning that this file is sorted as it should be. That is if you want comment at all, comments in the middle look like noise to me.
I still don't think it's surprising enough to warrant a comment. Sorting is not a strict rule, and having unsorted functions should not be considered unexpected.