Hi Arash,
>> I'm also concerned whether this was the product of copy/paste, which
>> isn't allowed. Was it?
> about that copy/paste stuff,
> well I guess we eventually produce an almost identical header file with one
> in the SDK
> I mean everything in the header file is already exposed to the u
Hi,
FOSDEM is one of the largest gatherings of Free Software
contributors in the world and happens each February in Brussels
(Belgium). One of the tracks will be the CrossDesktop DevRoom, which
will host Desktop-related talks.
We are now inviting proposals for talks about Free/Libre/Open-source S
I would love to see such a tool, i could use it for some actctx tests in ntdll
Gesendet mit meinem HTC
- Reply message -
Von: "Saulius Krasuckas"
An: "Alexandre Julliard"
Cc:
Betreff: ntdll: Revert 33b0f0edffa0c8a06b4ee8831c92fdc373f83ece.
Datum: Do., Nov. 17, 2011 18:49
On Thu, 17 N
Given errors like
err:module:find_forwarded_export function not found for forward
'msvcrt.__CxxFrameHandler3' used by L"C:\\windows\\system32\\msvcr90.dll". If
you are using builtin L"msvcr90.dll", try using the native one instead.
I'm starting to get the feeling that, if you're going to install
On 11/17/2011 15:18, Thomas Faber wrote:
This removes the use of two Variable Length Arrays.
Instead of filling a local buffer, then allocating a new one using
SysAllocString[Len], the strings are now directly written to the latter
buffer.
Note that the 'len' variable in hunk 2 does not need to c
> can you be more specific please?
Yes:
+#ifndef __HTTP_H__
+#define __HTTP_H__
Don't do that, it's already #ifdef protected.
+/*#if _WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0501*/
Dead code, just leave it out.
+typedef struct _HTTP_REQUEST_V2
+{
+/* TODO : anonymous structure is not supported by C standard */
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> The test requires a PE binary because obviously we can't test PE
> protections on Unix binaries. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just
> build a crosstest:
>
> $ wine ntdll_crosstest.exe info.c
> info.c:1296: Test failed: mbi.Protect is 0x8,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
> I know the style around here is to comment minimally, but I didn't
> find it clear what the behavior of this function is. ...
The intended behavior of the function is to take bind() calls on any
name corresponding to a local network adapter an
On 11/16/11 19:20, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jacek Caban writes:
---
dlls/mshtml/tests/activex.c | 133
++
1 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
It doesn't work here:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M mshtml.dll -T ../../.. -p mshtm
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> The test requires a PE binary because obviously we can't test PE
>> protections on Unix binaries. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just
>> build a crosstest:
>>
>> $ wine ntdll_crosstest.exe info.c
>> info.c:1296: Test failed: mbi.Pro
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The test requires a PE binary because obviously we can't test PE
> protections on Unix binaries. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just
> build a crosstest:
>
> $ wine ntdll_crosstest.exe info.c
> info.c:1296: Test failed: mbi.Protect is 0x8, expected 0x4
The test
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> >> > The tests clearly show that this commit is wrong. If there is an
>> >> > application
>> >> > or a test case which fails because of this, it would be helpful to at
>> >> > least
>> >> > mention it.
>> >>
>> >> It fixes the test for
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >> > The tests clearly show that this commit is wrong. If there is an
> >> > application
> >> > or a test case which fails because of this, it would be helpful to at
> >> > least
> >> > mention it.
> >>
> >> It fixes the test for .bss protection, in ntdll:info.c.
>
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> > The tests clearly show that this commit is wrong. If there is an
>> > application
>> > or a test case which fails because of this, it would be helpful to at least
>> > mention it.
>>
>> It fixes the test for .bss protection, in ntdll:
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > The tests clearly show that this commit is wrong. If there is an application
> > or a test case which fails because of this, it would be helpful to at least
> > mention it.
>
> It fixes the test for .bss protection, in ntdll:info.c.
I don't see that test failing be
Vitaliy Margolen writes:
> On 11/16/2011 08:31 AM, Francois Gouget wrote:
>> ---
>>
>> I moved DllMain() to the end of the file so it comes after the variable
>> declaration.
> It's already forward declared few lines after DllMain(). So you should
> move that declaration instead.
>
> Hm... it see
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> The tests clearly show that this commit is wrong. If there is an application
> or a test case which fails because of this, it would be helpful to at least
> mention it.
It fixes the test for .bss protection, in ntdll:info.c.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 08:31 AM, Francois Gouget wrote:
> > ---
> >
> > I moved DllMain() to the end of the file so it comes after the variable
> > declaration.
> It's already forward declared few lines after DllMain(). So you should move
> that declaration i
18 matches
Mail list logo
