I updated
http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64
to no longer recommend pulling from Maarten's tree,
since doing so made the instructions more complex, and
the main tree does just about as good at
passing conformance tests (maybe modulo a hang or two).
- Dan
Jeff Zaroyko wrote:
> Gold means you're either using native dlls, have modified the program
> by patching it with nocd or you've modified Wine to make it work, ie
> there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly.
> There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jeff Zaroyko wrote:
> 2009/1/6 Björn Krombholz :
> Gold means [...] you've modified Wine to make it work, ie
> there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly.
> There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to
> change it as you s
Hello,
can anyone tell me where to find information about the b3DAccelerationExists
and b3DAccelerationEnabled properties in the display container returned by
dxdiagn.dll and when they are supposed to be false or true?
In fact, MSDN does not seem to provide information about any of the propertie
2009/1/6 Björn Krombholz :
> Hi,
>
> I started a discussion inside AppDB about the in my eyes "strange"
> Gold rating of Fallout 3
--snip--
> The basic point is: Fallout 3 (a game) only works with a small -- but
> nevertheless -- patch, otherwise it will crash, no matter what
> dll-overrides/sett
Björn Krombholz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started a discussion inside AppDB about the in my eyes "strange"
> Gold rating of Fallout 3 (it's actually just an example, other entries
> suffer the same problems). I know there was a discussion about the
> rating on this list last month, but as far as I could s
Hi,
I started a discussion inside AppDB about the in my eyes "strange"
Gold rating of Fallout 3 (it's actually just an example, other entries
suffer the same problems). I know there was a discussion about the
rating on this list last month, but as far as I could see my
particular issue wasn't cove
Hi,
> diff --git a/dlls/wow32/wow32.spec b/dlls/wow32/wow32.spec
> index 227120b..4d2d6d1 100644
> --- a/dlls/wow32/wow32.spec
> +++ b/dlls/wow32/wow32.spec
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> # ordinal exports
> -1 stdcall WOWGetDescriptor(long long)
> +1 stdcall -nonanme WOWGetDescriptor(long long)
spellin
> +if (FIXME_ON(ole))
> +{
> +FIXME("Unknown magic %04x, %d read bytes:\n",magic,xread);
> +hr=E_FAIL;
This changes the behavior of the call based on what debug channels are
enabled. I don't think you want to do that.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Massimo Del Fedele wrote:
> Roderick Colenbrander ha scritto:
>>> I haven't still any clue if the way I started the DIB engine has the
>>> correct approach, I mean if I should follow this way with the hope to
>>> have it included in main tree or not Can please
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:10:05 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: User winehq
already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in /home/
winehq/opt/appdb/include/query.php on line 82
Database error, please try again soon: User wineh
Am Montag, den 05.01.2009, 11:06 +0600 schrieb titon barua:
> > GCC is complaining about the ignored return value.
> >
> As the code says /* we dont care */ but gcc prints warnings, is it ok
> with just
> "if (write(*(This->fd), &event, sizeof(event)));"
>
> Gcc wont complain and the code is as
Hans Leidekker writes:
> SfcIsKeyProtected is not exported from my copy of sfc.dll. I think
> it was added by mistake in commit 7dbe9a6728064172a9d9edac484f90c421156785.
It's exported on Vista. Also please don't make up names for ordinal
functions, use anonymous entry points ('@') until we find
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Damjan wrote:
>>ssize_t ignored;
>>...
>>ignored = write(*(This->fd), &event, sizeof(event));
>>
>>You could make the ignored variable static, maybe even global.
>
> Please don't. We don't want to ignore the errors,
> we want to handle them. The
Damjan wrote:
>ssize_t ignored;
>...
>ignored = write(*(This->fd), &event, sizeof(event));
>
>You could make the ignored variable static, maybe even global.
Please don't. We don't want to ignore the errors,
we want to handle them. The changes you're
proposing are harmful to readability. Better
Michael Karcher writes:
> This is still not complete. No NULL pointer checks are emitted for parameters
> that are aliases to pointers or arrays.
This adds checks in places where midl doesn't have them. It breaks the
service tests for instance.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:45 PM, titon barua wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 08:47 +0100, Michael Karcher wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 05.01.2009, 11:06 +0600 schrieb titon barua:
>> > > GCC is complaining about the ignored return value.
>> > >
>> > As the code says /* we dont care */ but gcc prints war
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 08:47 +0100, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Montag, den 05.01.2009, 11:06 +0600 schrieb titon barua:
> > > GCC is complaining about the ignored return value.
> > >
> > As the code says /* we dont care */ but gcc prints warnings, is it ok
> > with just
> > "if (write(*(This->fd)
2009/1/4 Michael Karcher :
> This eliminates the wrong null pointer check for pointers to interfaces.
This isn't correct. Object pointers are generated, I believe, in the
case where we have an [in, out] unique pointer, since if the pointer
has been set to NULL the previous memory needs to be freed
2009/1/4 Michael Karcher :
> diff --git a/tools/widl/proxy.c b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> index f0e3f1d..0e5cbaf 100644
> --- a/tools/widl/proxy.c
> +++ b/tools/widl/proxy.c
> @@ -185,6 +185,11 @@ int needs_null_check(const var_t *v)
>
> if (type)
> {
> + if (type->type == RPC_FC_FP ||
> +
21 matches
Mail list logo
