Re: not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the offender

NTDEV
1

found it.

inside ntddk.h I found the following:

#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#pragma warning(default:4200)

it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the
struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to default.
the default being that the warning is enabled.

the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the
clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they do
this.

IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
enough to change this.

thanks for your time.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no avail.
>>
>> in my header i have the following
>>
>> #pragma warning(push)
> –
> Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it the
> same.
> Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while compiling
> DDK headers.
>
> Regards,
> Gennady Mayko.
>
>
>

2

This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef

#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(push)
#endif
#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(pop)
#else
#pragma warning(default:4200)
#endif

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

found it.

inside ntddk.h I found the following:

#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#pragma warning(default:4200)

it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the

struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
default.
the default being that the warning is enabled.

the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the

clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
do
this.

IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
enough to change this.

thanks for your time.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
avail.
>>
>> in my header i have the following
>>
>> #pragma warning(push)
> –
> Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
the
> same.
> Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
compiling
> DDK headers.
>
> Regards,
> Gennady Mayko.
>
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

3

Hi,

I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the DDK
with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as the
one that gets installed with WDF?

And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Doron Holan” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef

#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(push)
#endif
#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(pop)
#else
#pragma warning(default:4200)
#endif

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

found it.

inside ntddk.h I found the following:

#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#pragma warning(default:4200)

it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the

struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
default.
the default being that the warning is enabled.

the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the

clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
do
this.

IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
enough to change this.

thanks for your time.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
avail.
>>
>> in my header i have the following
>>
>> #pragma warning(push)
> –
> Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
the
> same.
> Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
compiling
> DDK headers.
>
> Regards,
> Gennady Mayko.
>
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

4

The WDK is the next version of the DDK. The WDK will be released when
Vista is released.

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

Hi,

I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the
DDK
with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as
the
one that gets installed with WDF?

And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Doron Holan” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef

#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(push)
#endif
#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(pop)
#else
#pragma warning(default:4200)
#endif

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

found it.

inside ntddk.h I found the following:

#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#pragma warning(default:4200)

it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the

struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
default.
the default being that the warning is enabled.

the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the

clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
do
this.

IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
enough to change this.

thanks for your time.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
avail.
>>
>> in my header i have the following
>>
>> #pragma warning(push)
> –
> Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
the
> same.
> Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
compiling
> DDK headers.
>
> Regards,
> Gennady Mayko.
>
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

5

Bruno van Dooren wrote:

I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the DDK
with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as the
one that gets installed with WDF?

And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?

WDK is the new acronym for the Vista DDK. Nothing freshens up a product
like a new acronym. Look what it did for NMR.

–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

6

>

WDK is the new acronym for the Vista DDK. Nothing freshens up a product
like a new acronym. Look what it did for NMR.

Nucleo Magnetic Resonance?

:slight_smile:

That’s the only one that springs to mind.

kind regards,
Bruno.

7

Ah. thanks for the explanation.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Doron Holan” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
The WDK is the next version of the DDK. The WDK will be released when
Vista is released.

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

Hi,

I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the
DDK
with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as
the
one that gets installed with WDF?

And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Doron Holan” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef

#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(push)
#endif
#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#if _MSC_VER >= 1200
#pragma warning(pop)
#else
#pragma warning(default:4200)
#endif

d

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

found it.

inside ntddk.h I found the following:

#pragma warning(disable:4200)
typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
ULONG NumberOfElements;
ULONG_PTR Reserved;
SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
} SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
#pragma warning(default:4200)

it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the

struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
default.
the default being that the warning is enabled.

the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the

clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
do
this.

IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
enough to change this.

thanks for your time.

kind regards,
Bruno.

“Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
avail.
>>
>> in my header i have the following
>>
>> #pragma warning(push)
> –
> Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
the
> same.
> Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
compiling
> DDK headers.
>
> Regards,
> Gennady Mayko.
>
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

8

Bruno van Dooren wrote:

>WDK is the new acronym for the Vista DDK. Nothing freshens up a product
>like a new acronym. Look what it did for NMR.
>
>

Nucleo Magnetic Resonance?

:slight_smile:

That’s the only one that springs to mind.

Yes. It was called NMR, for “nuclear magnetic resonance” imaging, when
it was first introduced, because it imaged the nucleus of a cell. The
word “nuclear” scared too many people, so we now know and love it as
MRI. Same technology, new acronym.

–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

9

WDK IIRC contains:

  • 2003 SP1 DDK (the last)
  • new DDK for Vista only
  • IFS Kit
  • KMDF

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bruno van Dooren”
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the offender

> Hi,
>
> I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the DDK
> with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as the
> one that gets installed with WDF?
>
> And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?
>
> kind regards,
> Bruno.
>
>
> “Doron Holan” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef
>
> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
> #pragma warning(push)
> #endif
> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
> ULONG NumberOfElements;
> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
> #pragma warning(pop)
> #else
> #pragma warning(default:4200)
> #endif
>
>
> d
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
> offender
>
> found it.
>
> inside ntddk.h I found the following:
>
> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
> ULONG NumberOfElements;
> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>
>
> it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the
>
> struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
> default.
> the default being that the warning is enabled.
>
> the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the
>
> clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
> do
> this.
>
> IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
> enough to change this.
>
> thanks for your time.
>
> kind regards,
> Bruno.
>
>
> “Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
> avail.
> >>
> >> in my header i have the following
> >>
> >> #pragma warning(push)
> > –
> > Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
> the
> > same.
> > Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
> compiling
> > DDK headers.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gennady Mayko.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

10

The WDK does not contain the 3790.1830 DDK it replaces it with the Vista
DDK, and the Vista DDK is quite happy to build w2k/xp/w2k3/vista targets
in various 32/64 bit flavors. It does contain a version of KMDF but I
don’t believe it is the KMDF10 version.

There is a huge change in the content and structure of the include files
in the Vista DDK. This change is probably the most significant
difference. The header files are ‘versioned’ meaning that one set of
header files suffices for all (w2k-vista) OS releases. In addition the
header files have been completely re-worked such that the overlapping
definition problems have been eliminated, and there are now proper
subsets relationships for the major include files
(ntifs.h,ntddk.h,wdm.h). Along the way lots of bug like features of the
include files have been corrected.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Maxim S. Shatskih
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:52 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

WDK IIRC contains:

  • 2003 SP1 DDK (the last)
  • new DDK for Vista only
  • IFS Kit
  • KMDF

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bruno van Dooren”
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

> Hi,
>
> I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the
DDK
> with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same
as the
> one that gets installed with WDF?
>
> And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?
>
> kind regards,
> Bruno.
>
>
> “Doron Holan” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef
>
> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
> #pragma warning(push)
> #endif
> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
> ULONG NumberOfElements;
> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
> #pragma warning(pop)
> #else
> #pragma warning(default:4200)
> #endif
>
>
> d
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van
Dooren
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
> offender
>
> found it.
>
> inside ntddk.h I found the following:
>
> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
> ULONG NumberOfElements;
> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>
>
> it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after
the
>
> struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
> default.
> the default being that the warning is enabled.
>
> the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be
the
>
> clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
> do
> this.
>
> IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really
cares
> enough to change this.
>
> thanks for your time.
>
> kind regards,
> Bruno.
>
>
> “Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
> avail.
> >>
> >> in my header i have the following
> >>
> >> #pragma warning(push)
> > –
> > Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
> the
> > same.
> > Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
> compiling
> > DDK headers.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gennady Mayko.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@stratus.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com

11

> - 2003 SP1 DDK (the last)
do you mean that there will be no more updates, or that that is the latest
one cureently available?

  • new DDK for Vista only
  • IFS Kit
    for free?
  • KMDF
    not the UMDF?

kind regards,
Bruno.

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bruno van Dooren”
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the offender
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is the
>> DDK
>> with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same as
>> the
>> one that gets installed with WDF?
>>
>> And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bruno.
>>
>>
>> “Doron Holan” wrote in message
>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef
>>
>> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
>> #pragma warning(push)
>> #endif
>> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
>> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
>> ULONG NumberOfElements;
>> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
>> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
>> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
>> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
>> #pragma warning(pop)
>> #else
>> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>> #endif
>>
>>
>> d
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
>> offender
>>
>> found it.
>>
>> inside ntddk.h I found the following:
>>
>> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
>> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
>> ULONG NumberOfElements;
>> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
>> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
>> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
>> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>>
>>
>> it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after the
>>
>> struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
>> default.
>> the default being that the warning is enabled.
>>
>> the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be the
>>
>> clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h they
>> do
>> this.
>>
>> IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really cares
>> enough to change this.
>>
>> thanks for your time.
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bruno.
>>
>>
>> “Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> >
>> > “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
>> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
>> avail.
>> >>
>> >> in my header i have the following
>> >>
>> >> #pragma warning(push)
>> > –
>> > Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep it
>> the
>> > same.
>> > Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
>> compiling
>> > DDK headers.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Gennady Mayko.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>

12

UMDF will also be in the WDK AFAIK.

d

– I can spell, I just can’t type.

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van Dooren
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:20 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender

  • 2003 SP1 DDK (the last)
    do you mean that there will be no more updates, or that that is the
    latest
    one cureently available?
  • new DDK for Vista only
  • IFS Kit
    for free?
  • KMDF
    not the UMDF?

kind regards,
Bruno.

Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bruno van Dooren”
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
offender
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked on the website, but if I understood correctly, the WDK is
the
>> DDK
>> with extra stuff. The current DDK is WIN2003 SP1. Isn’t this the same
as
>> the
>> one that gets installed with WDF?
>>
>> And if it isn’t, then what is the difference between WDK and DDK?
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bruno.
>>
>>
>> “Doron Holan” wrote in message
>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> This has been fixed in the WDK. There is the new typedef
>>
>> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
>> #pragma warning(push)
>> #endif
>> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
>> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
>> ULONG NumberOfElements;
>> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
>> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
>> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
>> #if _MSC_VER >= 1200
>> #pragma warning(pop)
>> #else
>> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>> #endif
>>
>>
>> d
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Bruno van
Dooren
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:48 PM
>> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>> Subject: Re:[ntdev] not able to disable warnings: NTDDK.h is the
>> offender
>>
>> found it.
>>
>> inside ntddk.h I found the following:
>>
>> #pragma warning(disable:4200)
>> typedef struct _SCATTER_GATHER_LIST {
>> ULONG NumberOfElements;
>> ULONG_PTR Reserved;
>> SCATTER_GATHER_ELEMENT Elements;
>> } SCATTER_GATHER_LIST, *PSCATTER_GATHER_LIST;
>> #pragma warning(default:4200)
>>
>>
>> it disables the warning, not caring that i already did so, and after
the
>>
>> struct declaration, it reverts the warning level for 4200 back to
>> default.
>> the default being that the warning is enabled.
>>
>> the warning level should be pushed and popped, because that would be
the
>>
>> clean solution. the funny thing is that in some places in ntddk.h
they
>> do
>> this.
>>
>> IMO this is incorrect behavior, though i doubt that anyone really
cares
>> enough to change this.
>>
>> thanks for your time.
>>
>> kind regards,
>> Bruno.
>>
>>
>> “Gennady Mayko” wrote in message
>> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> >
>> > “Bruno van Dooren” wrote in message
>> > news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> i have been staring at this problem this entire evening, but to no
>> avail.
>> >>
>> >> in my header i have the following
>> >>
>> >> #pragma warning(push)
>> > –
>> > Although you save current level 4 of the warnings, you still keep
it
>> the
>> > same.
>> > Use #pragma warning(push,3) to set level 3 of the warnings while
>> compiling
>> > DDK headers.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Gennady Mayko.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> —
>> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@microsoft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com