Re: Interest in nt_load_image?

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> I don't see what resources you're talking about.
> Resources needed to try to figure out whether we need the
> compatibility code, devise probes, waiting for someone to holler and
> remembering to check if someone did...

I'm not suggesting we do any of those things.

I suggest we write the code under the assumption that GDI+ is available
and that's it.  "waiting for someone to holler" is already taken care of
by debbugs, so it doesn't take any resources.  As for remembering to
check, there's no need to do that either: if noone hollers, then we
do nothing.

>> From where I stand, you're suggesting to "waste precious resources"
>> trying to make the code hypothetically work in Windows-98, whereas I'm
>> suggesting we don't do that and let other people come whining if they
>> suffer the consequences.
> There are no consequences.  The paradigm of loading a shared library
> dynamically and testing whether doing that succeeded is so boilerplate
> in the w32 code that it never takes more than a simple copy/pasta to
> add one more.

But what do we do if the loading fails?  If we simply fail to display
the image, then that's fine by me.  If OTOH we go through the trouble of
falling back on some other code which otherwise wouldn't be needed in
the build (and would hence never be tested, BTW), then it sounds like
"waste precious resources".

>> > One day it will die of natural causes, no need to invest even
>> > a minimal effort in that.
>> I'm not sure how that would happen
> It will happen when 32-bit builds will die.  2038 at the latest.

Are we sure sure 32bit Windows installations will have all disappeared
by 2038 ?  ;-)  


        Stefan "who finds 18 more years of support for Windows-98 rather
                excessive"