On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2009/3/19 Ozkan Sezer <seze...@gmail.com>: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Vincent R. <foru...@smartmobili.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:58:13 +0200, Ozkan Sezer <seze...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm a bit amazed that the prototype for VirtualProtect() is known to the >>>> compiler but the definition of DWORD is not.. In any case, it should be >>>> fixed easily by changing DWORD into unsigned int which is what a >>>> DWORD is always defined as. And PR 39063 is still open anyway. >>>> -- >>>> Ozkan >>> >>> Yes you are right about the fact VirtualProtect is defined and not DWORD so >>> something is wrong with my includes >> >> That is my guess.. >> >>> However you are wrong about DWORD definition it has always be defined >>> like this : >>> >>> typedef unsigned long DWORD, *PDWORD, *LPDWORD; >>> >>> at least windows. >>> >> >> A DWORD on windows is an unsigned 32 bit integer, therefore even >> if you use long, it won't matter because long is 32 bits for both win32 >> and for win64. >> >> -- >> >> Ozkan >> > > Ozkan, > > Not, really. Because if the function was prototyped before by DWORD > (for mingw/cygwin on x86/x64), we get a warning about different > prototypes. For the compiler unsigned long and unsigned int are > different types. >
That was the reason I had specifically changed that int into a DWORD and if the reporter's headers do have a problem, it still should stay that way. -- Ozkan
