Hi, On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Heiko Voigt wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 07:11:18AM +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > > On 2009.03.30 02:52:47 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Magnus Bäck wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 27, 2009 at 03:25 CET, Johannes Schindelin > > > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Magnus Bäck wrote: > > > > > > I'd be very surprised if ZwQueryDirectoryFile() hasn't always > > > > > > been around (I just verified ntdll.dll from NT 4.0), so that's > > > > > > not a worry. Don't know why MSDN reports it as introduced in > > > > > > XP. > > > > > > > > > > As the current maintainer of msysGit, I refuse to have something > > > > > in the installer I ship that relies on not-at-all guaranteed > > > > > interfaces. > > > > > > > > Although I do appreciate the importance of guaranteed interfaces, > > > > I am also pragmatic. An incompatible change in ntdll.dll would > > > > break vast amounts of programs, including cygwin. There is a lot > > > > to be said about Microsoft and their APIs, but I don't think they > > > > have a habit of changing ABIs or function semantics for userland > > > > libraries that have been around for 15 years. > > > > > > Had you pointed to some document that states that the function has > > > been in all NT-based versions, that would have done the trick. > > > > Not official documentation, but at least from some MS guy it seems: > > http://www.osronline.com/showThread.cfm?link=73086 (last message). > > > > Apparently, it was in NT3.x, but they document only what's actually > > defined in the header. > > How about runtime checking? You could do GetProcAddress(...) and if you > don't get it use the old behaviour. I mean if it really is faster why > not let Users of recent systems benefit from it. While my first reaction was negative, I have to admit that thinking about it longer, it does seem to make a whole lot of sense. Thanks, Dscho
