Hi, On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Magnus Bäck wrote: > On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 01:29 CEST, > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 07:11:18AM +0200, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > If anything worries me it's forward compatibility should Microsoft > change the function signature. Backwards compatibility can always > be guaranteed by using GetProcAddress(). Again, I would be very > surprised but IF it could be quite fatal. > > Anyway, we don't know for sure if it's faster or if it fixes the DST > problem of FindFirstFile(). I'll write some code to try it out. Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Ciao, Dscho
