Sascha Hanse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just tried to install the recent Wine-tarball (20041019) on my OpenBSD
> 3.6. First I had to remove kthread.c:275: the RFTHREAD flag. Then the
> 'make depend && make' worked properly but the make install first fails
> with:
>
> /usr/bin/install -c ser
Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think even "tiny" is an exaggeration. Gcc has been capable of doing
>> this for years and years. I'd be surprised if you could find a compiler
>> that could not, and still compile wine satisfactory.
>
> I guess such changes are acceptable if it make
I have discovered that IE6 gives a page fault, a first chance exception,
when re-creating "Symptom 1" below. I have attaced the output of
winedbg. I am unable to interpret this file. As I said before, if
anyone wants me to do some troubleshooting or "patch testing," I will be
more than happy
Hi again,
A better patch than previous
Changelog:
- beta implementation of HW Vertex Buffer support (using
ARB_vertex_buffer_object): locking/unlocking, creation, destruction
- some wined3d headers/interface extension
Todo
- Bind/Unbind on rendering (use exported APIs, see
IWineD3DDevic
Hi Eric,
Thanks. That fixes the watchpoints, but introduces a couple of small
problems:
1) in dbg.y, break_add_watch_from_lvalue should take only one argument
(drop second argument)
2) in dbg.y, I have no minidump_write. Should this be replaced with
dbg_printf("%s\n", $2); ?
After fix
Hi people,
I just tried to install the recent Wine-tarball (20041019) on my OpenBSD
3.6. First I had to remove kthread.c:275: the RFTHREAD flag. Then the
'make depend && make' worked properly but the make install first fails
with:
/usr/bin/install -c serialui.dll.so
/usr/local/lib/wine/serialui
While looking at the WDG (and please don't count me in about arguing
whether it's WDG or WD'sG or WD'G), I came onto the Advanced Topics book
after the two big ones ("Developing Wine" and "Wine Architecture")
I does seem very odd to me as it right now:
- it just contains "random" bits of informa
I have been trying to make wine work properly with Solaris xlib and have been
experiencing a few stack overflow exceptions
eg
0009:Ret kernel32._LeaveSysLevel() retval= ret=7f86a7ba
0009:Ret user32.USER_Unlock() retval= ret=7f53f837
0009:Call ntdll.RtlEnterCriticalSection(7f5798
Walt Ogburn a écrit :
Hi,
Winedbg's watchpoints don't seem to work for me: when I try to watch a
memory location, winedbg responds that a watchpoint has been set at a
different, always constant location (I suspect this is actually in
winedbg's memory space). Nothing happens when the location I was
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
>> > dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
>>
>> Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a pare
Juan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any reason this patch wasn't applied?
> http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2004/10/0167.html
It doesn't apply properly, please resend an updated version.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any reason this patch wasn't applied?
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2004/10/0167.html
I know it's big, but I hope the test cases help
demonstrate its correctness. Let me know if there's
anything else I can do to help a review.
Thanks,
--Juan
--- Bill Medland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In what MSDN? I presume you mean the msdn.microsoft.com site as at a certain
>
> date.
>
> > it is stated that if nCount is 1,
>
> Not in the MSDN CDs of January 2002; it is -1 there.
>
> I guess you found a typo in MSDN
>
Oh, maybe the msd
Thorsten Kani wrote:
Hmm,
sorry- i meant SM_CYBORDER and SM_CYEDGE. (classical past_1:00am typo)
testing shows that using SM_CYBORDER instead of SM_CYEDGE affects
appearence only minimal.
if this bug only appears while using it under windows, it shouldnt be
really important.
GetSystemMetrics(SM_
Hmm,
sorry- i meant SM_CYBORDER and SM_CYEDGE. (classical past_1:00am typo)
testing shows that using SM_CYBORDER instead of SM_CYEDGE affects
appearence only minimal.
if this bug only appears while using it under windows, it shouldnt be
really important.
Do you agree setting OFFSET_Y to zero is
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:13:07PM +0200, Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:29:35 +0900, you wrote:
>
> > > From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> > > finds that out easy.
> >
> > Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
> > t
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:29:35 +0900, you wrote:
> > From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> > finds that out easy.
>
> Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
> the code itself becomes more readable with my changes and makes it
> not dep
"Rein Klazes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the C point of view these bit logics are identical. The compiler
> finds that out easy.
Yes, I know. That's why the optimizations are "tiny". I believe that
the code itself becomes more readable with my changes and makes it
not depend on the optimiz
"Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
> > dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
>
> Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a parent
> invisible and checks the visibility state of the c
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:48:05 +0900, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Changelog:
> Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tiny optimizations of bit testing operations.
Testing with gcc 3.3.5:
> -BOOL min_or_max_box = (wndPtr->dwStyle & WS_MAXIMIZEBOX) ||
> -
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have to write a test case and add it to existing ones in
> dlls/user/tests/win.c to confirm that the patch is correct.
Is something that creates a tree of windows and then makes a parent
invisible and checks the visibility state of the children
Thorsten Kani wrote:
Nice Patch - looks good now!
i have changed the offsets and used SM_CXBORDER instead of SM_CXEDGE.
(According to MSDN, cxedge is used for 3D while cxborder is used for
Flat )
This seems to fix the"draw below" issue. Visual Experience comes now
really near native.
I noticed t
"Peter Riocreux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The comment above SWP_DoOwnedPopups in dlls/x11drv/winpos.c suggests
> that the only thing missing is what I *might* have fixed here,
> therefore the patch also removes the FIXME and the WARN. It compiles
> and doesn't break any behaviour I can test, b
Mike McCormack wrote:
oops. The macro functions for duplicating strings already exist, so
use them instead.
Mike
ChangeLog:
* implement ChangeServiceConfigA using ChangeServiceConfigW
Index: dlls/advapi32/service.c
24 matches
Mail list logo
