"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, I'm afraid I don't. In particular, I noticed that the functions > in loader/ne/*.c don't have the 16 prefix, even if most/all of them > are 16 bit functions, AFAICS.
Ah, so you want to change internal functions too? I don't think I agree with that. > I guess what I'm saying is that if we had these rules: > Function names end in 16 IFF they are 16bit functions > File names end in 16 IFF they get compiled out by --disable-win16 > It makes it so much easier to spot problems by just scanning the > code, not to speak of the simplicity that it brings to any analysis > tool. I don't think uglifying the function names just to make the tool easier is a good trade-off. There are ways of doing the analysis by using the linker, and that's much better than an approach based on function names. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
