On Tuesday, December 13, 2016, Hans Leidekker hans@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 10:55 -0200, Bruno Jesus wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Hans Leidekker <hans@codeweavers.com
javascript:;> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Hans Leidekker <hans@codeweavers.com javascript:;>
dlls/winhttp/net.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++--------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Hi, Isn't it better to make winhttp use ws2_32 just like wininet change [1]? Then we would have a single point for all networking code and EINTR is already covered in ws2_32.
5436fef80722fe7896aed5e659c31fdade4ef5b3
I have been waiting for a more compelling reason. Moving to ws2_32 is not entirely free (e.g. from a performance or debugging perspective). I believe the wininet switch was motivated by programs that rely on wininet to initialize winsock, but I'm not aware of such problems with winhttp.
I understand, but the code would be much cleaner and I don't recall any bugs complaining about wininet performance. Are you fixing any bug or regression? Otherwise I think this should be discussed further after the freeze.