Re: wsprintf I64 - how to get it to include a plus sign ? Wrap-up

malxau,

> These DLLs are constructed by forwarding any unchanged implementation
> to a "current" DLL, while containing "old" implementations as local
> to CRTDLL.

I've seen enough DLLs do something like that, yes.  I've always wondered 
about it : why using forwarding (in the Dll or its library), and not just 
directly call the old function in the old DLL ?

Than again, I've also seen dummy functions (always returning True or False), 
or multiple names for the same code.  Very funny when I, in W98, tried to do 
a wide-string compare for a sorting routine and it refused to sort. :-(

>> Those are specific programming-language related DLLs.
>
> Yeah, I know why you'd feel that way, but...they're part
> of Windows now.

As is CRTDLL.  But as said, I didn't want to go near to those, apparently, 
language-specific DLLs.  Heck, my define-file (extracted from a DLL) to 
Library converter can't even handle some of those "mangled" (and often 
unreadable) function names.  ??2@YAPAXI@Z anyone ? :-\

> Note for example that there's no 64 bit CRTDLL, because it made
> no sense to have a frozen-in-time 1993 version for an ABI that
> launched in 2005.

Other DLLs /have/ been updated thru the times though.  I had to do a lot of 
searching and re-writing of include files (and programs) when I switched to 
XP, because function signatures changed or required a specific alignment of 
and in the structures they accepted as arguments.

I think what irks me is that they included /language-specific/ DLLs in the 
OS, instead of either upgrading the old one or provide a new *generic* 
version of it.

>> For the record : I'm an Assembly programmer. :-)
>
> I've been having a lot of fun with 16 bit assembly recently too,
> but rarely needed to in 32 bit.

I've been "at it" since DOS 3.3 .  My first "hello world" program was a few 
hundred bytes.  My thanwhile C program was 30 KByte (and that in the time of 
720 KByte floppies!).  At that time my choice was clear.  Although at times 
I've used other programming languages, I've always returned to Assembly. 
Knowing that what I write is exactly what gets executed does a lot for me.

> All my 32 bit assembly is to implement 64 bit math so I don't
> need Microsoft's CRT :)

:-) I did the same in my 16-bit time, and just updated it when the 32-bit 
time arrived.   I think I still have the multiplication and division 
routines for numbers of an arbitrary byte length.

> All my 32 bit assembly is to implement 64 bit math so I don't
> need Microsoft's CRT :)

You know that there are a number of RtlLargeInteger* functions available in 
NTDLL ?  And as that one gets loaded as part of KERNEL32 ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser