> Time to contradict myself.
That always seems to be a problem with reverse engineering :) Had some
problems also with discovering the information :)
>
> I said that last error wasn't returned by these functions. Well it does
> seem to always be zero, but I need to read it because the return value
> is definitely second in the buffer. This becomes obvious when stuck in
> an infinite loop when you're certain you're checking for
> ERROR_NO_MORE_ITEMS :)
>
> I'm still a uint32 short in the buffer, so what seems most likely is
> that the device does not return, in the case of enumvalue, the size of
> the name string, we're left to figure that out. Same applies to infokey
> with regard to the class name.
Could you please give some detailed information about the actual calls
that you do, a dump of the corresponding send buffer and a dump of the
corresponding receiving buffer?
That way I might be able to help out a bit :)
>
> Anyone see any glaring errors in my reasoning ?
Nope, but making right assumptions about why microsoft choose to do
certain things might be very difficult :)
Guido Diepen
--
Aviation is proof that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
--Eddie Rickenbacker
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
SynCE-Devel mailing list
SynCE-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synce-devel
