Yes, only the SetupMoveFile would need SEH2 (I took it from the kernel32 code, MoveFile(Ex) and associated Basep** function(s), which used SEH2). I agree, as it is, the SEH2 usage here is hackish (as I've redefined the SEH macros in filesup.h, because I didn't want to include SEH library in usetup yet, while keeping the SetupMoveFile code close to the original one) .
"> This variable fulfills the requirements for _SEH2_VOLATILE" You should then check the corresponding kernel32 code that may need such a fix. Thanks for the review, Hermès -----Message d'origine----- De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la part de Thomas Faber Envoyé : lundi 12 juin 2017 21:16 À : ros-dev@reactos.org Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 75008: [USETUP]: Introduce SetupDeleteFile() and SetupMoveFile() (in addition to the already-existing SetupCopyFile()) in order to implement moving / renaming existing files. Will be use... On 2017-06-12 01:58, hbelu...@svn.reactos.org wrote: > +NTSTATUS > +SetupMoveFile( > + IN PCWSTR ExistingFileName, > + IN PCWSTR NewFileName, > + IN ULONG Flags) > +{ > + NTSTATUS Status; > + IO_STATUS_BLOCK IoStatusBlock; > + OBJECT_ATTRIBUTES ObjectAttributes; > + PFILE_RENAME_INFORMATION RenameInfo; > + UNICODE_STRING NewPathU, ExistingPathU; > + HANDLE SourceHandle = NULL; This variable fulfills the requirements for _SEH2_VOLATILE > + BOOLEAN ReplaceIfExists; > + > + RtlInitUnicodeString(&ExistingPathU, ExistingFileName); > + RtlInitUnicodeString(&NewPathU, NewFileName); > + > + _SEH2_TRY > + { Which part of this code needs SEH? That looks like it's purely hiding bugs. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
