Re: mshtml: Don't use WINAPI for assembly functions to avoid linker warnings on mingw

[Francois Gouget]

> #ifdef __i386__
>
> #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, off, x)          \
>     HRESULT wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown*); \

[...]
> #elif defined(__x86_64__)
>
> #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, x, off)          \
>     HRESULT WINAPI wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown*); \

[...]
> #else
>
> #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, x, off)                           \
>     static HRESULT WINAPI wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown *iface) {    \

[...]

Is it normal that these functions are still marked as WINAPI in the 
64bit and other platform cases?

Also, is there a reason not to mark these functions as static in the 
Intel cases? Because they are coded in assembly?

mshtml: Don't use WINAPI for assembly functions to avoid linker warnings on mingw

[Jacek Caban]

On 12/07/11 09:01, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > #ifdef __i386__
> >
> > #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, off, x)          \
> >      HRESULT wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown*); \
>
> [...]
> > #elif defined(__x86_64__)
> >
> > #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, x, off)          \
> >      HRESULT WINAPI wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown*); \
>
> [...]
> > #else
> >
> > #define DEFINE_WRAPPER_FUNC(n, x, off)                           \
> >      static HRESULT WINAPI wrapper_func_##n(IUnknown *iface) {    \
>
> [...]
>
> Is it normal that these functions are still marked as WINAPI in the
> 64bit and other platform cases?

Well, it doesn't really matter since these functions are implemented in 
assembly and they are actually a trick for calling functions we don't 
know anything about (current implementation will work correctly for any 
cdecl and stdcall functions on 32-bit and any standard MS ABI function 
on 64-bit), so we can't have the right declaration anyways. On 32-bits, 
declaring them as stdcall causes GCC to mangle names with argument count 
when referenced in vtbls, which caused linker warnings (in old GCCs it 
would probably be even errors). I kept WINAPI for 64-bit variant just to 
declare MS ABI, but, since the declaration doesn't really matter, it's 
just a cosmetic thing. For other platforms it matters even less - if we 
reach these calls, we should expect problems anyway.
> Also, is there a reason not to mark these functions as static in the
> Intel cases? Because they are coded in assembly?

Well, talking about C declaration, it causes warnings like these here:

ifacewrap.c:215:1: warning: 'wrapper_func_99' used but never defined

That's because GCC has no way to know that it's defined in assembly. 
Then, again, marking them as static in C declarations won't make them 
true statics functions anyway.

Jacek