Hi, Considering that:
- The code to throw out INIT sections isn't in trunk, so _nothing happens_ when a function is made INIT or not. - There were already many INIT functions in NTOSKRNL and the kernel worked fine - 49463 only added INIT_FUNCTION to the HAL - A later revision by Timo added INIT_FUNCTION to win32k, and that worked fine as well Don't you think it's a bit, pardon my language, braindead, to revert INIT_FUNCTION in NTOSKRNL, as your patch did? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply revert INIT_FUNCTION *just* in the HAL, which is what 49463 added? Why remove it from NTOSKRNL, where it always worked? Why _not_ remove it from Win32k, if you think INIT_FUNCTION is what's wrong? Your "fix" makes absolutely no logical sense from _any_ point of view (as usual). On a more serious note, don't you think it's strange that merely placing code in a section (which right now isn't dropped, or messed with, in any way), would cause problems in the OS? Isn't it immediately obvious to you that this is a red herring or that the compiler is broken? Especially since the revision only causes problems for _some_ people? For example, it works for me, and I even have a local change that _throw out_ init code. Please learn some basic rational logic methodologies, the scientific method, and software engineering processes. -r > Hi, > > finally this commit won't be reverted (unless someone explicitly asks for it) > as it brings testman back and shows quite important bugs. > Feel free to find a nice bugfix instead. > > WBR, > P. Schweitzer > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
