compile with -DSTRICT

[Michael Stefaniuc]

Hello,

i'm not 100% sure what -DWINE_NO_STRICT should do, but i suspect it
should negate the effect of -DSTRICT. The attached patch enables that
and lets wine compile with -DSTRICT where WINE_NO_STRICT isn't defined.

Comments?
bye
    michael

P.S.: is this -DSTRICT a m$ windows thing or a wine only thing?

[Alexandre Julliard]

Michael Stefaniuc  writes:
> i'm not 100% sure what -DWINE_NO_STRICT should do, but i suspect it
> should negate the effect of -DSTRICT. The attached patch enables that
> and lets wine compile with -DSTRICT where WINE_NO_STRICT isn't defined.

WINE_NO_STRICT not only undoes the effect of -DSTRICT, but it also
makes handles UINTs, which -DSTRICT is not supposed to do. And the
idea was that -D__WINE__ would implicitly force -DSTRICT so that you
don't have to specify it. But I agree the #ifdefs could be improved so
that it still works even if you add -DSTRICT. Something like the patch
below should work I think.
> P.S.: is this -DSTRICT a m$ windows thing or a wine only thing?

It's a Windows thing.

Index: include/winnt.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /opt/cvs-commit/wine/include/winnt.h,v
retrieving revision 1.134
diff -u -r1.134 winnt.h
--- include/winnt.h	19 Oct 2002 17:20:02 -0000	1.134
+++ include/winnt.h	21 Oct 2002 20:04:02 -0000
@@ -561,14 +561,14 @@
  * we're ready we'll remove the '!defined(__WINE__)' (the equivalent
  * of converting it from DECLARE_OLD_HANDLE to DECLARE_HANDLE).
  */
-#if defined(__WINE__) && defined(WINE_NO_STRICT)
+#ifdef WINE_NO_STRICT
 typedef UINT HANDLE;
 #else
 typedef void *HANDLE;
 #endif
 typedef HANDLE *PHANDLE, *LPHANDLE;

-#if defined(STRICT) || (defined(__WINE__) && !defined(WINE_NO_STRICT))
+#if (defined(STRICT) || defined(__WINE__)) && !defined(WINE_NO_STRICT)
 #define DECLARE_HANDLE(a) \
     typedef struct a##__ { int unused; } *a; \
     typedef a *P##a
Index: include/wine/server_protocol.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /opt/cvs-commit/wine/include/wine/server_protocol.h,v
retrieving revision 1.46
diff -u -r1.46 server_protocol.h
--- include/wine/server_protocol.h	18 Oct 2002 23:46:28 -0000	1.46
+++ include/wine/server_protocol.h	21 Oct 2002 20:04:05 -0000
@@ -32,12 +32,12 @@
     int pad[16];
 };

-#if defined(STRICT) || (defined(__WINE__) && !defined(WINE_NO_STRICT))
-typedef void *obj_handle_t;
-typedef void *user_handle_t;
-#else
+#ifdef WINE_NO_STRICT
 typedef int obj_handle_t;
 typedef unsigned int user_handle_t;
+#else
+typedef void *obj_handle_t;
+typedef void *user_handle_t;
 #endif

typedef unsigned short atom_t;
Index: server/protocol.def
===================================================================
RCS file: /opt/cvs-commit/wine/server/protocol.def,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -r1.47 protocol.def
--- server/protocol.def	18 Oct 2002 23:46:28 -0000	1.47
+++ server/protocol.def	21 Oct 2002 20:04:08 -0000
@@ -48,12 +48,12 @@
     int pad[16]; /* the max request size is 16 ints */
 };

-#if defined(STRICT) || (defined(__WINE__) && !defined(WINE_NO_STRICT))
-typedef void *obj_handle_t;
-typedef void *user_handle_t;
-#else
+#ifdef WINE_NO_STRICT
 typedef int obj_handle_t;
 typedef unsigned int user_handle_t;
+#else
+typedef void *obj_handle_t;
+typedef void *user_handle_t;
 #endif

typedef unsigned short atom_t;

[Michael Stefaniuc]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Stefaniuc  writes:
> > i'm not 100% sure what -DWINE_NO_STRICT should do, but i suspect it
> > should negate the effect of -DSTRICT. The attached patch enables that
> > and lets wine compile with -DSTRICT where WINE_NO_STRICT isn't defined.
>
> WINE_NO_STRICT not only undoes the effect of -DSTRICT, but it also
> makes handles UINTs, which -DSTRICT is not supposed to do. And the
> idea was that -D__WINE__ would implicitly force -DSTRICT so that you

Ok, that makes sense.
> don't have to specify it. But I agree the #ifdefs could be improved so
> that it still works even if you add -DSTRICT. Something like the patch
> below should work I think.

Yes, it works, could you please commit it?

thanks
bye
    michael