Re: [PATCH try3] atl110: Added new DLL.
On 09/03/13 13:51, Qian Hong wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban ja...@codeweavers.com wrote: Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel would be guarantee that we don't miss some calls while debugging a bug. However, some functions have the same names and are not forwarded, so one debug channel would be ambiguous. I'm open for opinions. How about something like this: atl80.c: -BOOL WINAPI AtlAxWinInit(void) +BOOL WINAPI ATL80_AtlAxWinInit(void) atl80.spec: -42 stdcall AtlAxWinInit() +42 stdcall AtlAxWinInit() ATL80_AtlAxWinInit So we can always use one debug channel for all atlXX dlls, at the same time different exported function with the same name will generate different trace log. Yes, that could work as well. I don't have strong opinion, feel free to submit a patch with solution of your choice. Thanks, Jacek
Re: [PATCH try3] atl110: Added new DLL.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong fract...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll? Oh, I just found dlls/atl100/atl_ax.c and dlls/atl100/atl.c used different debug channel, is that expected? -- Regards, Qian Hong - http://www.winehq.org
Re: [PATCH try3] atl110: Added new DLL.
+WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(atl); Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
Re: [PATCH try3] atl110: Added new DLL.
On 09/03/13 13:28, Qian Hong wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong fract...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll? Oh, I just found dlls/atl100/atl_ax.c and dlls/atl100/atl.c used different debug channel, is that expected? Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel would be guarantee that we don't miss some calls while debugging a bug. However, some functions have the same names and are not forwarded, so one debug channel would be ambiguous. I'm open for opinions. Thanks, Jacek
Re: [PATCH try3] atl110: Added new DLL.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban ja...@codeweavers.com wrote: Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel would be guarantee that we don't miss some calls while debugging a bug. However, some functions have the same names and are not forwarded, so one debug channel would be ambiguous. I'm open for opinions. How about something like this: atl80.c: -BOOL WINAPI AtlAxWinInit(void) +BOOL WINAPI ATL80_AtlAxWinInit(void) atl80.spec: -42 stdcall AtlAxWinInit() +42 stdcall AtlAxWinInit() ATL80_AtlAxWinInit So we can always use one debug channel for all atlXX dlls, at the same time different exported function with the same name will generate different trace log. -- Regards, Qian Hong - http://www.winehq.org
