520053692817-0001@t-online.de (Andreas Mohr) writes:
What isn't the case ? Both fixups ? Or only one of these ?
The return value: NT returns a BOOL, 0 or 1.
I haven't checked the old protection behavior; but anyway this doesn't belong in VirtualProtect, if we have to ignore the execute permission it must be done consistently throughout the code.
Well, to be exact, no application. I just found this out by accident.
That's what I suspected ;-)
IMHO the probability that some applications exist that are too lazy to supply their own old_prot variable and that check the return value instead is rather high, so I think that patch is necessary.
We can't start breaking things based only on your suspicion that someone somewhere will have used a feature that isn't documented at all (plus there is a documented way of doing exactly the same thing). If you have an app that needs it sure, otherwise we'll just keep returning a BOOL, as the function is documented to do.
Maybe we should add a winver check, though.
No thanks.
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 01:24:34PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
520053692817-0001@t-online.de (Andreas Mohr) writes:
What isn't the case ? Both fixups ? Or only one of these ?
The return value: NT returns a BOOL, 0 or 1.
I haven't checked the old protection behavior; but anyway this doesn't belong in VirtualProtect, if we have to ignore the execute permission it must be done consistently throughout the code.
ok.
Well, to be exact, no application. I just found this out by accident.
That's what I suspected ;-)
:)
IMHO the probability that some applications exist that are too lazy to supply their own old_prot variable and that check the return value instead is rather high, so I think that patch is necessary.
We can't start breaking things based only on your suspicion that someone somewhere will have used a feature that isn't documented at all (plus there is a documented way of doing exactly the same thing). If you have an app that needs it sure, otherwise we'll just keep returning a BOOL, as the function is documented to do.
Hmm, ok ;-\
(you do know that I disagree on these things, right ? after all Wine emulates *Windows*, and if Windows does it that way, then we should do it, too, for heaven's sake, especially if it's not really painful)
Anyway, but then please at least commit a comment for VirtualProtect that says something like: Note that the return value at least on W98SE is the value returned in old_prot instead of a BOOL. We don't do this, as NT4 only returns a simple BOOL as documented, but if a program needs this behaviour, then we should change it.
-
520053692817-0001＠t-online.de -
Alexandre Julliard