🚀 go-pugleaf

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:

>"Bob Gonder"  wrote in message
>
>> Seems to me that the compiler could create a jump
>> table of all functions in the dll (used or not), and the
>> startup could fill it all in.
>
>That is exactly what it actually does.

Well, not _exactly_. Apparently it doesn't create a jump table of
_all_ functions, used or not. Just those that are called.

The delayed-load OTOH, does seem to create a table for _all_
functions, with the unused function entries set to NULL or int 3.



>The functions in question already existed in the NT platform at the time the
>"old" kernel was created for the 9x systems.

Oh. I keep thinking NT came "after"
Especially when the help says "[New - Windows NT]"
It reinforces the notion that NT is "newer".

>  Why they are introduced into
>the 9x kernel but not actually implemented, I have no idea.

Yeah, that's what threw me.

>> And if it's in the old kernel, why wasn't it implimented?
>
>Since those particular functions are file related, I would guess that they
>need certain file system capabilities that NTFS provides but FAT doesn't?

Only 2 things "new" in the Ex version.. callback (nothing NT there)
and COPY_FILE_RESTARTABLE, which may or may not be a problem.

Since callback is a very nice feature for CopyFile, and since it's
already stubbed out, they should have implimented it, and said the
flag COPY_FILE_RESTARTABLE wasn't supported. They've done that with
other functions.
And as long as I'm ranting....why didn't they put a callback in the Ex
version of MoveFile?  (rhetorical)