[PATCH v2 0/1] MR1421: kernelbase: add c++ header guards

[Vitor Ramos (＠VitorRamos)]

pathcch is missing c++ header guars, which leads to missing symbols when trying to link using winebuild

--
  v2: kernelbase: add c++ header guards

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/1421

[PATCH v2 1/1] kernelbase: add c++ header guards

[vitorramos]

From: vitorramos

---
 include/pathcch.h | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/pathcch.h b/include/pathcch.h
index 0c2dc63c41b..d85989c0eaf 100644
--- a/include/pathcch.h
+++ b/include/pathcch.h
@@ -16,6 +16,10 @@
  * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
  */

+#ifdef __cplusplus
+extern "C" {
+#endif
+
 #define PATHCCH_NONE                            0x00
 #define PATHCCH_ALLOW_LONG_PATHS                0x01
 #define PATHCCH_FORCE_ENABLE_LONG_NAME_PROCESS  0x02
@@ -48,3 +52,7 @@ HRESULT WINAPI PathCchSkipRoot(const WCHAR *path, const WCHAR **root_end);
 HRESULT WINAPI PathCchStripPrefix(WCHAR *path, SIZE_T size);
 HRESULT WINAPI PathCchStripToRoot(WCHAR *path, SIZE_T size);
 BOOL    WINAPI PathIsUNCEx(const WCHAR *path, const WCHAR **server);
+
+#ifdef __cplusplus
+}
+#endif
\ No newline at end of file

[PATCH v2 1/1] kernelbase: add c++ header guards

[Marvin]

Hi,

It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below.
Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch.
If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise
please ask for the known failures list to be updated.

The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how
to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details:

The full results can be found at:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=126323

Your paranoid android.

=== debian11 (32 bit report) ===

d3d8:
device.c:3365: Test failed: Expected message 0x1c for window 0x1, but didn't receive it

[Vitor Ramos (＠VitorRamos)]

On Thu Nov 17 20:57:26 2022 +0000, Vitor Ramos wrote:
> changed this line in [version 2 of the diff](/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/1421/diffs?diff_id=19225&start_sha=1c30c0067bc4e49ee3498f3960593bbefd4421e7#cd0f725b06cc9815f19cbd2566693fababb09b81_31_33)

Yes, moved to the beginning. But I didn't understand the option flags part.

[Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov)]

On Thu Nov 17 21:15:34 2022 +0000, Vitor Ramos wrote:
> Yes, moved to the beginning. But I didn't understand the option flags part.

In current SDK they moved from macros to an enum. You don't need to make this change in your patch, it's just something I noticed.

[Vitor Ramos (＠VitorRamos)]

On Thu Nov 17 21:19:11 2022 +0000, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> In current SDK they moved from macros to an enum. You don't need to make
> this change in your patch, it's just something I noticed.

Ahh got you now, I can open another PR for that. I guess all those macros except PATHCCH_MAX_CCH would go for the enum, right?

[Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov)]

On Thu Nov 17 21:35:47 2022 +0000, Vitor Ramos wrote:
> Ahh got you now, I can open another PR for that. I guess all those
> macros except PATHCCH_MAX_CCH would go for the enum, right?

Yes, it's called "PATHCCH_OPTIONS" enum in SDK. Please take a look how it's defined there.

[Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov)]

Another minor thing to change to make history look better - we use a module name in commit subjects when changes are made to that module. In case you're changing headers, please use "include: " prefix, and mentioned header name in the commit subject.