Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr writes:
It turns out that a lot of the functions my script complains should have the -noname or not have the -noname property should:
- really not have a name at all
- or be marked as -private
Is this something we want to do?
No, I don't think there's any harm in exporting all the functions we know about.
Similarly in kernel32.spec we have a bunch of entry-points for Windows 9x APIs which Windows exports by ordinal only. However these APIs are given names:
1 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall0(long) VxDCall 24 stdcall GlobalAlloc16(long long)
That seems wrong since none of the kernel32 dlls ever exports a VxDCall0 or GlobalAlloc16 function. Shouldn't this be written as follows instead?
1 stdcall -register -i386 @(long) VxDCall 24 stdcall @(long long) GlobalAlloc16
Using -noname would be preferable.