Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH applied] Re: Strip _stdcall suffixes (@nn) for 32-bit builds

2019-01-20 Thread Simon Rozman
Hi, > You really do not like this calling convention, do you? ;-) - learned > something new today, what "-Wl,--kill-at" does... (while the original > round of stdcall discussion was MSVC, here's the mingw variant) If I was importing this library into a C/C++ project, I wouldn't mind function na

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH applied] Re: Extend FindSystemInfo custom action to detect OpenVPNService state

2019-01-20 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 01:19:50PM +, Simon Rozman wrote: > Now, I could leave that semicolon in place to keep IntelliSense false > warning away, but looking at the code I asked myself a question: "If my code > is so convoluted it produces a false warning to a bot, how convoluted it > must

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH applied] Re: Extend FindSystemInfo custom action to detect OpenVPNService state

2019-01-20 Thread Simon Rozman
Hi, > +finish_QueryServiceStatusEx:; > + > +// Service is not started. Is it set to auto-start? > +// MSDN describes the maximum buffer size for QueryServiceConfig() > to be 8kB. > +// This is small enough to fit on stack. > > .. there shouldn't be a ";" after a label, and no C++ comm

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH applied] Re: Introduce tapctl.exe utility and openvpnmsica.dll MSI CA

2019-01-20 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:15:33PM +, Simon Rozman wrote: > Stay tuned. I am :-) [..] > IIRC, we agreed, I prepare documentation at OpenVPN Wiki. After it's > published, remind me to URL it in the source code. Works for me! > > [ Tapctl funnies ] > > "tapctl list" lists all NICs found

Re: [Openvpn-devel] [PATCH 5/5] Detect TAP interfaces with root-enumerated hardware ID

2019-01-20 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:38:27PM +, Simon Rozman wrote: > > > The openvpnmsica.dll and tapctl.exe install TAP interfaces using root- > > > enumerated HWIDs, and were not detected by openvpn.exe. > > > > I do not see a specific reason to *not* apply this patch, but I'm > > wondering if y