Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: "Sam Hobbs" <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:32:32 -0700
"J French" <erewhon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:430c6fb3.103511928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In those days 16 bits were a lot more efficient than 32 bits, so the
> wParam was a 'signal' on the stack and the lParam was a ES:SI type
> pointer .. if needed
What signal on what stack? I sure have not heard of a Windows message having
any relevance to a stack.
I think you mean "segment:offset" instead of "ES:SI". ES (Extra Segment) is
one of several segment registers and SI (Source Index) is one of several
offset registers. Far pointers can exist in a combination of other registers
and in memory in segment:offset format. The format used for storing far
pointers in memory (segment:offset) is used in messages as well. It is not
possible to use registers in messages.
In the 16-bit (real mode) world, all far pointers are segment:offset type of
pointers.
> With Win32 (32 bit throughout) it is a lot more efficient to work with
> multiples of 4 bytes (32 bits) so they simply lengthened the wParam (
> Word Parameter )
It is certainly more useful to have 32 bits instead of 16 bits, but I can't
think of any significant performance improvements. For example, 32 bits
allow more data in an edit control (text box). Also, 32 bits allow greater
scroll limits for scroll boxes.
> Realistically it was just an opportunity for 'fine tuning'
> - also future development (widening wParam opens unused options)
Yes, it did simplify future development. I believe that 64-bit Windows has
64 bits for wParam and lParam. It was probably relatively easy to make that
improvement, since most of the work necessary for it (generalization of the
headers is a large part of that) was done in the conversion from 16-bits to
32-bits.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: Karl E. Peterson
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: J French
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- References:
- Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: Joseph Geretz
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: Tom Esh
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: Sam Hobbs
- Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- From: J French
- Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- Prev by Date: Re: copymemory basic question
- Next by Date: Re: gettickcount returns a negative number???
- Previous by thread: Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- Next by thread: Re: Seeking info on wParam and lParam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|