Adam Petaccia wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:32 +0100, Reece Dunn wrote:
>
>> 2008/8/13 Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> Its customary to make a function return NotImplemented in Gdiplus, if
>>> its just a dummy function that does nothing and returns. But .NET seems
>>> to check
Reece Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Aug 13, 2008 11:32 AM wrote about .NET
program crashes involving stubbed functions
>
>2008/8/13 Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Its customary to make a function return NotImplemented in Gdiplus, if
>> its just a dummy function
2008/8/13 Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Its customary to make a function return NotImplemented in Gdiplus, if
> its just a dummy function that does nothing and returns. But .NET seems
> to check for this and throw an exception, crashing the program anyway.
>
> See bug http://bugs.winehq.org/
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:32 +0100, Reece Dunn wrote:
> 2008/8/13 Adam Petaccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Its customary to make a function return NotImplemented in Gdiplus, if
> > its just a dummy function that does nothing and returns. But .NET seems
> > to check for this and throw an exception, cra
Its customary to make a function return NotImplemented in Gdiplus, if
its just a dummy function that does nothing and returns. But .NET seems
to check for this and throw an exception, crashing the program anyway.
See bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12951 for details, but
originally a p
