2011/10/2 Frédéric Delanoy
> - for (i = (indexLow + indexHigh) / 2; !impl && indexLow <= indexHigh;
> - i = (indexLow + indexHigh) / 2)
> + for (i = indexHigh / 2; !impl && indexLow <= indexHigh; i = (indexLow +
> indexHigh) / 2)
How about following code:
while (!impl && indexLow
> Isn't it that way just to save the use of an extra return S_OK?
> Instead a break could be used too because that function returns S_OK
> by default.
>
> http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/jscript/regexp.c#L4025
>
> Best regards,
> Bruno
A fall-through would indeed be lazy and not in the spir
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 14:58, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Andrew Talbot writes:
>
>> @@ -4037,6 +4037,7 @@ static HRESULT RegExpConstr_leftContext(script_ctx_t
>> *ctx, vdisp_t *jsthis, WORD
>>
>> V_VT(retv) = VT_BSTR;
>> V_BSTR(retv) = ret;
>> + /* fall through */
>>
Frédéric Delanoy writes:
> indexLow is always 0 at that point
This makes it harder to understand what the code is doing here. Probably
needs some restructuring.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Andrew Talbot writes:
> @@ -4037,6 +4037,7 @@ static HRESULT RegExpConstr_leftContext(script_ctx_t
> *ctx, vdisp_t *jsthis, WORD
>
> V_VT(retv) = VT_BSTR;
> V_BSTR(retv) = ret;
> +/* fall through */
> }
> case DISPATCH_PROPERTYPUT:
> return S_OK;
I
Charles Davis writes:
> @@ -268,9 +256,9 @@ int send_thread_signal( struct thread *thread, int sig )
> if (!mach_port_extract_right( process_port, thread->unix_tid,
>MACH_MSG_TYPE_COPY_SEND, &port, &type
> ))
> {
> -if ((ret =
The real way to mount a revolt, of course, would be to
fork wine and maintain a better version of it. The
likelihood of that ever happening seems slim, but
perhaps in 15 years, after HTML 5 takes over and users
no longer run win32 apps, it's possible that something
like that would happen naturally
Am 08.10.2011 12:13, schrieb Alistair Leslie-Hughes:
> Hi,
> The native mpr.DLL doesn't have these functions.
>
>
> Changelog:
> mpr: Remove DllCanUnloadNow and DllGetClassObject
>
>
> Best Regards
> Alistair Leslie-Hughes
>
>
no patch?
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=14764
Your paranoid android
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 11:44:24AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > Bernhard Loos wrote:
> >
> > > +int debug_childs:1; /* also debug all child
> > > processes */
> >
> > 'debug_children' would be a bette
10 matches
Mail list logo