On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury
wrote:
> ... There are criteria beyond the two you mentioned,
> but it is rare to see them come into play. Few people know enough to
> even recognize such problems. While far from an expert on such matters,
> I have enough background to recog
On 10/14/2012 05:33 AM, GOUJON Alexandre wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 01:40 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>> Dan:
>>
>> AJ and DT can both speak for themselves, and have just done so. It
>> is now AJs decision. There are criteria beyond the two you mentioned,
>> but it is rare to see them come into p
On 10/14/2012 01:40 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
Dan:
AJ and DT can both speak for themselves, and have just done so. It
is now AJs decision. There are criteria beyond the two you mentioned,
but it is rare to see them come into play. Few people know enough to
even recognize such problems.
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)(
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 ULongToPtr(ul) ((void *)(ULONG_PTR)((ULONG)
On 10/12/2012 01:46 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 ULongToP
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 ULongToPtr(ul) ((void *)(ULONG_PTR)((ULONG)ul))
> +#def
13 matches
Mail list logo
