Ronnie Sahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I took a quick glace at the hand-tuned one, and it looked right to me, > > but that's not saying a lot. If you point out discrepancies, I'll > > clarify the ones I can. (They have a number of calls defined that I'm > > not sure of.) > > Well, starting at function 0x09 they start to differ quite a lot. > > Perhaps I should just ignore the muddle generated one and implement > all that is in lsarpc.idl just assuming it is right. > If lsarpc.idl is incorrect, someone will just have to report the bugs in the > dissection.
That's probably the way to go. I took a closer look, and the muddle generated version definitely has errors in it. E.g., what it is calling Function_09 seems to have the signature of the real Function_0a; the real Function_09 seems to be missing. Todd
