I hope you can read English. You no-devs are not supposed to challenge a coding change argument made by the person who wrote the code with the argument being "I have no idea what I'm talking about but you're wrong about how your own code should look like" and state "*we* should do this instead."
On 2009-12-11, at 3:57 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo wrote: > > i hope you dont mean we no-devs cant discuss stuff and even learn from you > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Alex Ionescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ergo, we may define them to correctly reflect the EFLAGS register. > > Who is "WE"? You're not even a DEV for this project! > > > > > However, but I think Alex is right that the compatible identifiers > > should be retained. > > EFLAG_SIGN and EFLAG_ZERO are used to compare flags in AH after LAHF, > > and should be retained verbatim, since they are public (in NTDDK.H). > > As for any MS EFLAGS_xx definitions, I'm not privvy and can't say. > > Then shut up and don't post completely USELESS and wrong information. > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev Best regards, Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
