On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Peter Riocreux wrote:
> I can't see anyone relying on using something they know to be
> wrong. *That* would also be madness
Right. And hence our stance.
> I have turned it into a trace.
>
> Patch below.
Good. Now, for inclusion in the tree, you need to submit it
to [EM
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Peter Riocreux wrote:
>
>> I don't know, I just had thought that Wine was attempting to be
>> bug-for-bug compatible, and assumed that part of that was honouring
>> all the restrictions on usage of functions and how these varied
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Peter Riocreux wrote:
> I don't know, I just had thought that Wine was attempting to be
> bug-for-bug compatible, and assumed that part of that was honouring
> all the restrictions on usage of functions and how these varied
> between versions.
We are not *that* compatible. it
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On April 15, 2004 7:58 am, Peter Riocreux wrote:
>> Here is my first cut.
>>
>> Remember that this is my first patch, so go easy on me with he
>> flamethrowers. I know the indenting isn't quite right.
>
> The formatting doesn't seem too bad, but the
On April 15, 2004 7:58 am, Peter Riocreux wrote:
> Here is my first cut.
>
> Remember that this is my first patch, so go easy on me with he
> flamethrowers. I know the indenting isn't quite right.
The formatting doesn't seem too bad, but the format is wrong.
Please use uniffied diff (-u):
http
Here is my first cut.
Remember that this is my first patch, so go easy on me with he
flamethrowers. I know the indenting isn't quite right.
Probably easiest to review by comparing old and new rather than
looking at old and patch.
Comments, especially regarding more appropriate error values to u
