Ah, thank you for the clarification^^
Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 22:17 schrieb Matthew Clark:
>> Ah this makes perfect sense and is exactly what I was looking for, thank
>> you for your response! My limited understanding from the article was
>> that 2.3 was simply cleanup a
On 6/5/07, Jens Nestler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8551
Hello,
please find attached the patch for the bug mentioned above.
Jens Nestler
The bug also has a test case that needs to be integrated into the Wine
test suite and submitted to wine-patches.
--
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 22:17 schrieb Matthew Clark:
> Ah this makes perfect sense and is exactly what I was looking for, thank
> you for your response! My limited understanding from the article was
> that 2.3 was simply cleanup and putting some extensions in the official
> API that have been in
Hi guys,
I also read this short article recently. I agree with Stefan that we should
wait until the API is finalized. I'm pretty sure that the 3.0 specification
will be backwards compatible with 2.x in much the same way as 2.0 is
backwards compatible with 1.1
By waiting a few weeks/months until w
Ah this makes perfect sense and is exactly what I was looking for, thank
you for your response! My limited understanding from the article was
that 2.3 was simply cleanup and putting some extensions in the official
API that have been in drivers for a while just not in the official API
and then
Am Dienstag, 5. Juni 2007 21:17 schrieb Matthew Clark:
> I was reading the other day about the 2.3 and 3.0 versions of the OpenGL
> API coming out this year(
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39846 ) and the first
> thought I had was wine and DX10. I was wondering what you guys thou
I was reading the other day about the 2.3 and 3.0 versions of the OpenGL
API coming out this year(
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39846 ) and the first
thought I had was wine and DX10. I was wondering what you guys thought
about this, are you excited(as I am)? are you hesitant? Kno
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:35:59PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
> >This and your next patch are in the same area as the one I just sent in
> >yesterday. Actually, my patch completely removes this function. Can
> >you try doing whatever you're working on with my last patch applied and
> >see if t
Dan Hipschman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
Previously, an array of pointers wouldn't be detected by this function.
---
tools/widl/header.h |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/widl/header.h b/tools/widl/hea
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:50:42PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> Previously, an array of pointers wouldn't be detected by this function.
> ---
> tools/widl/header.h |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/widl/header.h b/tools/widl/header.h
> index
"Rolf Kalbermatter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Go figure. To me it seems they messed up with the conversion from Widechar to
> ASCII when needing to calculate the needed size. Unless they use some other
> function than WideCharToMultiByte() it couldn't be for avoiding an extra
> buffer
> alloc
> Well, I didn't dig into this yet, but on Windows tests aren't failing.
> So I guess this key arrives during Windows setup process. Can't be so?
You're correct, I'm sure. It's just not that important in Wine, as we
don't use these flags yet, so the precise value is perhaps meaningless.
Some a
Hook the function that returns those pointers, and
have your hooked function return hooked function pointers.
It's not easy, but I think it would work.
* On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Juan Lang wrote:
> > This function tries to open Software_Publishing key.
...
> > So this key should be registered during wineprefix run at some point,
> > right?
>
> No, it's simpler than that, the order of the tests is merely wrong.
> WintrustGetRegPolicyFlags calls W
Hi,
I'm currently (still) busy with trying to find out how certain crypt32/wintrust
functions behave.
One of the functions CryptSIPLoad returns a set of function pointers that maybe
are called directly by an application/dll. These direct calls however don't show
up in a 'normal' trace.
Is
15 matches
Mail list logo
