On 6/19/08, Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all this is developer's mailing list not user's.
Ah, I will look for the other list and sign up there too. I am a user
but I hope to
be a developer too when I start understanding more. I think Wine is the most
important project
>
Zac Brown wrote:
> Change return value from STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER to
> STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION when retkey is null in NtOpenKey and remove
> todo_wine from test.
>
> Tested on Windows XP, Windows 2000 and Windows 2003.
>
> -Zac Brown
>
>
> --
Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 19.06.2008, 12:52 -0700 schrieb Zac Brown:
>> - Because these tests are mutually exclusive, a single goto label suffices
>> for
>> breaking the loop.
>
> As written, your tests are not mutually exclusive. It could happen that
> flags has IS_TEXT_UNICOD
Zac Brown wrote:
> Michael Karcher wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 19.06.2008, 12:52 -0700 schrieb Zac Brown:
>>> - Because these tests are mutually exclusive, a single goto label suffices
>>> for
>>> breaking the loop.
>> As written, your tests are not mutually exclusive. It could happen that
>> fl
Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 19.06.2008, 12:52 -0700 schrieb Zac Brown:
>> - Because these tests are mutually exclusive, a single goto label suffices
>> for
>> breaking the loop.
>
> As written, your tests are not mutually exclusive. It could happen that
> flags has IS_TEXT_UNICOD
Ignore that. I used Git wrong and ended up with an old incorrect revision.
Vincent Povirk
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Vincent Povirk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This change moves the escape functionality (replacing \ with \\) out
> of winemenubuilder and into wineshelllink. The .desktop fi
Am Donnerstag, den 19.06.2008, 12:52 -0700 schrieb Zac Brown:
> - Because these tests are mutually exclusive, a single goto label suffices
> for
> breaking the loop.
As written, your tests are not mutually exclusive. It could happen that
flags has IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS and IS_TEXT_UNICODE_REV
Hi,
> +IDS_OPEN "Октрыть"
Typo.
> +IDM_EXPERT,"Переключится между режимом эксперт/новичок"
ь is missing in word 'Переключится'.
--
Kirill
First of all this is developer's mailing list not user's.
Leslie Viljoen wrote:
> Hi people!
>
> I am a bit confused by the appdb entries for Internet Explorer 6
> (http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?versionId=469). There's a bug
> linked in one of the posts that seems to indicated IE does not w
I can follow this nice howto if someone thinks there's a chance of it
succeeding:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_Internet_Explorer_6_SP1#Internet_Explorer_6_SP_1_-_raw_install_.28wine_0.9.5_-_9.8-r1.29
..then I can report back. Should I bother?
I have already tried ies4linux and it failed
Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
> Dan Kegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> e.g.
>>
>> if (flags & IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS)
>> for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>>switch (s[i]) {
>>case '\t':
>>case '\n':
>>case 'r':
>>case 0x20:
>>
Hi people!
I am a bit confused by the appdb entries for Internet Explorer 6
(http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?versionId=469). There's a bug
linked in one of the posts that seems to indicated IE does not work
and that's expected.
Is IE6 supposed to work in Wine1 or is it a known not-working pro
Dan Kegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> e.g.
>
> if (flags & IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS)
> for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>switch (s[i]) {
>case '\t':
>case '\n':
>case 'r':
>case 0x20:
> out_flags |= IS_TEXT_UNICODE_C
Zac Brown wrote:
> Implement setting of IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS and
> IS_TEXT_UNICODE_REVERSE_CONTROLS when control characters are present in
> RtlIsTextUnicode.
>
> -Zac Brown
>
>
>
>
> ---
> dlls/ntdll/rtlstr.c
Jon Griffiths a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Title says it all.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -@ stub SymEnumerateSymbols64s
> +@ stdcall SymEnumerateSymbols64(long long long ptr ptr)
>
should be:
@ stdcall SymEnumerateSymbols
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Vitaly Perov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> /* move files using glob to a dest dir with FOF_MULTIDESTFILES */
>> shfo.fFlags |= FOF_MULTIDESTFILES;
>> set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0");
>> set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0");
>> ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test2.
Hi Lei,
2008/6/17 Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's been a week and nobody has responded to Dmitry's bug report [1]
> yet, so I'm going to bring it up here. I am all for it, does anyone
> have objections?
Mark it as remind, I'll look at it later.
On a more serious note, i agree that they shou
John Klehm wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Zac Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Implement setting of IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS and
>> IS_TEXT_UNICODE_REVERSE_CONTROLS when control characters are present
>> in RtlIsTextUnicode.
>>
>>
>
> Just a minor point: AFAIK the rule is to use C s
Dan Kegel wrote:
> The array doesn't make much sense if you're not going to iterate over it.
> It might be more readable if you replaced the array and long if
> with a switch statement.
> It would be nice to break out of the loop early.
> The last two suggestions together kind of mean a goto, which
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Zac Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implement setting of IS_TEXT_UNICODE_CONTROLS and
> IS_TEXT_UNICODE_REVERSE_CONTROLS when control characters are present
> in RtlIsTextUnicode.
>
>
Just a minor point: AFAIK the rule is to use C style /* comments */ only.
--
The array doesn't make much sense if you're not going to iterate over it.
It might be more readable if you replaced the array and long if
with a switch statement.
It would be nice to break out of the loop early.
The last two suggestions together kind of mean a goto, which is ugly,
but not too uncom
> /* move files using glob to a dest dir with FOF_MULTIDESTFILES */
> shfo.fFlags |= FOF_MULTIDESTFILES;
> set_curr_dir_path(from, "test?.txt\0");
> set_curr_dir_path(to, "testdir2\0");
> ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test2.txt"), "The file is not moved yet\n");
> ok(!file_exists("testdir2\\test4.txt"
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Looks like you need a test for window activation, not focus or hooks.
> You may try to add some missing bits to win.c,test_SetActiveWindow().
May be.. I decide to test SetFocus() because in this function calls
set_active_window() and another case set_active_window() not c
"James Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anything wrong with this patch?
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M urlmon.dll -T ../../.. -p
urlmon_test.exe.so url.c && touch url.ok
url.c:2309: Test succeeded inside todo block: bctx should not be destroyed here
make: *** [url.ok] Error 1
--
Al
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It doesn't matter for a hook if a window is visible or not,
> How I can see from this test - it is matter:
>
> /* SetFocus( hwnd ) Invisible parent, visible child */
> static const struct message SetFocusSeq_5[] =
> {
>{ HCBT_SETFOCUS, hook },
>
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> Example?
>
> WM_ACTIVATEAPP, WM_NCACTIVATE, WM_ACTIVATE.
>
I shall see this..
>
> It doesn't matter for a hook if a window is visible or not,
How I can see from this test - it is matter:
/* SetFocus( hwnd ) Invisible parent, visible child */
static const struct message S
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The test actually doesn't do anything useful. It doesn't check
>> any focus windows
> Hmm, I can to fix it.
>> and many vital message parameters.
> Example?
WM_ACTIVATEAPP, WM_NCACTIVATE, WM_ACTIVATE.
>> Besides we
>> already have test_SetFocus() in
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> The test actually doesn't do anything useful. It doesn't check
> any focus windows
Hmm, I can to fix it.
> and many vital message parameters.
Example?
> Besides we
> already have test_SetFocus() in win.c.
Yes, I have seen this but this test does not show issue that I have
"Anatoly Lyutin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try to make this test (in test_ShowWindow : "/* 32 */ { SW_HIDE, TRUE,
> 0, WmHide_3, TRUE }, ") passes clear and after some changes I observe
> that SetFocus() is working strange for some case.
> After this I wrote a test case for SetFocus(). SetF
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Will the 1.0.1 branch be receiving new conformance tests, or is that
>> unnecessary?
>
> If a bug fix comes with a test then the test can be merged too, but
> otherwise I don't think it's necessary to add tests.
>
As said
Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about patches that have no associated bug report but can and
> probably should be cherry picked into stable? Translation patches come
> to mind as a class of patches that would fall under this. We could
> require bugzilla entries for each of the
Eric Pouech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> how to you plan to handle patches that don't commit cleanly ?
> do you, by design of the process, intend to drop them (id est: drop
> every bug fixes that come after a functional change in the same area
> of code), or do you plan to handle yourself the tas
Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will the 1.0.1 branch be receiving new conformance tests, or is that
> unnecessary?
If a bug fix comes with a test then the test can be merged too, but
otherwise I don't think it's necessary to add tests.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
33 matches
Mail list logo
