On 10/13/2012 06:30 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> In general, patches to wine should have some
> demonstrated benefit, either by increasing the
> number of passing conformance tests, or by
> making some app work better, or both.
>
> Your current patch doesn't seem to do either of these things.
>
> Getti
In general, patches to wine should have some
demonstrated benefit, either by increasing the
number of passing conformance tests, or by
making some app work better, or both.
Your current patch doesn't seem to do either of these things.
Getting into a pissing match with AJ about patent
and copyrigh
On 10/13/2012 09:14 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Max TenEyck Woodbury writes:
>
>> Now, if you are going to tell me that these definitions were *copied*
>> from a Microsoft *source* rather than derived from a Microsoft
>> specification, you would have a point, but then there would be a whole
>
Max TenEyck Woodbury writes:
> Now, if you are going to tell me that these definitions were *copied*
> from a Microsoft *source* rather than derived from a Microsoft
> specification, you would have a point, but then there would be a whole
> bunch of copyright issues that would need to be worked t
On 10/12/2012 10:25 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Hi Max,
> here's a little test program that shows that your patch changes how
> UIntToPtr works:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> #define UIntToPtrA(i) ((void *)(intptr_t)((unsigned int)i))
> #define UIntToPtrB(i) ((void *)(intptr_t)
On 10/12/2012 09:49 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>
-#define IntToPtr(i) ((void *)(INT_PTR)((INT)i))
-#define UIntToPtr(ui) ((void *)(UINT_PTR)((UINT)ui))
-#define LongToPtr(l)((void *)(LONG_PTR)((LONG)l))
-#define
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:49:49AM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>
> > >> -#define IntToPtr(i) ((void *)(INT_PTR)((INT)i))
> > >> -#define UIntToPtr(ui) ((void *)(UINT_PTR)((UINT)ui))
> > >> -#define LongToPtr(l)((void *)(LONG_PTR)(
