> Patrik Stridvall <psÉleissner.se> writes:
>
> > If you think (1) is an potentially acceptable solution I
> can make the
> > Win16 thunking layer use it as a proof of concept. It will
> not take that
> > much time to do that I think, then we will see if my ideas
> will work I
> > am not 100% sure yet.
>
> Why don't you start implementing the x86 emulator instead? then once
> we have something that starts working we can worry about fixing the
> problems we encounter (and there will be many more problems than just
> function pointers...)
We don't need to go that far to encounter problem.
Just change the #define __stdcall to the empty define
and we will get plenty of problems that also will
exist with the emulator.
Beside making the emulator work is _very_ much work.
Make Wine work on compilers without the pascal calling
convention is much easier.
The problems above need to be solved regardless but
and I prefer to take one step at the time.
You didn't comment if you think what I proposed will work
or if it is an acceptable solution. Why don't we try
to solve the problems that must be solved regardless
instead of chasing after future problems that are either
indepent or easily solved after the problem I am talking
about have been solved.
So what do you think? Do you think my proposal(s) we work and
which one do you prefer? As I said I can try and remake
the Win16 thunking layer as a proof of concept.
