On 01.10.2013 12:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Ralf Habacker writes:
>
>> With other patches i have been told to implement such stuff in the dib
>> driver. Unfortunally this do not works in this case, because in the top
>> level function it looks like having driver spec
On 01.10.2013 12:40, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Ralf Habacker writes:
>
>> On 01.10.2013 12:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> Ralf Habacker writes:
>>>
>>>> With other patches i have been told to implement such stuff in the dib
>>>> driver
On 01.10.2013 12:40, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Ralf Habacker writes:
>
>> On 01.10.2013 12:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> Ralf Habacker writes:
>>>
>>>> With other patches i have been told to implement such stuff in the dib
>>>> driver
On 01.10.2013 12:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Ralf Habacker writes:
>
>> With other patches i have been told to implement such stuff in the dib
>> driver. Unfortunally this do not works in this case, because in the top
>> level function it looks like having driver spec
Am 10.09.2013 11:44, schrieb Ralf Habacker:
>
> - remove misleading comment
Just for the record:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365804%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
do not mention any error code, which could be tested
If the function succeeds, it returns ERROR_SUCCESS.
On 29.08.2013 19:58, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Ralf Habacker writes:
see http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34381
---
dlls/gdi32/painting.c | 18 --
1 Datei geändert, 16 Zeilen hinzugefügt(+), 2 Zeilen entfernt(-)
This would have to be done in the drivers.
done
On 28.08.2013 12:54, Hans Leidekker wrote:
On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 12:21 +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
diff --git a/dlls/iphlpapi/iphlpapi.spec b/dlls/iphlpapi/iphlpapi.spec
index 36ba13f..1eed5ae 100644
--- a/dlls/iphlpapi/iphlpapi.spec
+++ b/dlls/iphlpapi/iphlpapi.spec
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
@ stdcall
