Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com
dlls/authz/authz.spec | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/authz/authz.spec b/dlls/authz/authz.spec index eb9e044d2a..1e9edefc59 100644 --- a/dlls/authz/authz.spec +++ b/dlls/authz/authz.spec @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ @ stub AuthziInitializeAuditQueue @ stub AuthziInitializeContextFromSid @ stub AuthziLogAuditEvent +# AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 comes before AuthziModifyAuditEvent on native, +# even though AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent is before AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEventType
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.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com
dlls/authz/authz.spec | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/authz/authz.spec b/dlls/authz/authz.spec index eb9e044d2a..1e9edefc59 100644 --- a/dlls/authz/authz.spec +++ b/dlls/authz/authz.spec @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ @ stub AuthziInitializeAuditQueue @ stub AuthziInitializeContextFromSid @ stub AuthziLogAuditEvent +# AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 comes before AuthziModifyAuditEvent on native, +# even though AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent is before AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEventType
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.
Yes, I do have a script for sorting but I don't have an easy way to filter out based on which functions to sort and not sort, it would exclude an entire specfile.
FWIW, a quick look for the win10, 32-bit dlls shows that of 2005 windows dlls in the root directory, 536 don't follow the expected sorting rules. Of those, 476 appear to contain ordinals (first line doesn't match after sorting). That leaves approximately 60 files that appear to solely have missorted function names (files with ordinals may also contain sorting differences). And most of those don't exist in wine (133 are in wine, 343 aren't). I didn't verify how many are wine bugs versus windows bugs, but in any case, it's not an overwhelming number.
While the number of comments will definitely be greater than 1, I still feel that they have value to developers and the wider community. If churn is the issue, I could save that change for last, and send them all in one commit, would that be preferable?
- -Austin GPG: 14FB D7EA A041 937B
On 24.05.2017 9:50, Austin English wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com writes:
Signed-off-by: Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com
dlls/authz/authz.spec | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/dlls/authz/authz.spec b/dlls/authz/authz.spec index eb9e044d2a..1e9edefc59 100644 --- a/dlls/authz/authz.spec +++ b/dlls/authz/authz.spec @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ @ stub AuthziInitializeAuditQueue @ stub AuthziInitializeContextFromSid @ stub AuthziLogAuditEvent +# AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 comes before AuthziModifyAuditEvent on native, +# even though AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent is before AuthzInitializeObjectAccessAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent2 @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEvent @ stub AuthziModifyAuditEventType
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.
Yes, I do have a script for sorting but I don't have an easy way to filter out based on which functions to sort and not sort, it would exclude an entire specfile.
FWIW, a quick look for the win10, 32-bit dlls shows that of 2005 windows dlls in the root directory, 536 don't follow the expected sorting rules. Of those, 476 appear to contain ordinals (first line doesn't match after sorting). That leaves approximately 60 files that appear to solely have missorted function names (files with ordinals may also contain sorting differences). And most of those don't exist in wine (133 are in wine, 343 aren't). I didn't verify how many are wine bugs versus windows bugs, but in any case, it's not an overwhelming number.
While the number of comments will definitely be greater than 1, I still feel that they have value to developers and the wider community. If churn is the issue, I could save that change for last, and send them all in one commit, would that be preferable?
-Austin GPG: 14FB D7EA A041 937B
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
On 24.05.2017 9:50, Austin English wrote:
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.
That works for me. There are a few modules that I'd like to strip comments from, actually...
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.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Austin English -
Nikolay Sivov