Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What sort of tests do you want? I don't think I'll be able to come up
with anything that can be put into the Wine test framework.
Agreed, it's probably not possible to put that in the test framework
since it will n
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What sort of tests do you want? I don't think I'll be able to come up
> with anything that can be put into the Wine test framework.
Agreed, it's probably not possible to put that in the test framework
since it will need native dlls. All we really need
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ChangeLog:
Optimize for the case where a DLL with no path is requested and it is
already loaded. This change is correct since RtlDosSearchPath_U did not
change the path being looked at - if libname contains no path then
f
Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ChangeLog:
> Optimize for the case where a DLL with no path is requested and it is
> already loaded. This change is correct since RtlDosSearchPath_U did not
> change the path being looked at - if libname contains no path then
> file_part will be the sa
Hi,
I thought it would be good to post some benchmarks for the patch I just
sent to wine-patches:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2006-January/023323.html
I tested the loader code using the following in both cases:
int i;
DWORD dwTicksAfter;
DWORD dwTicksBefore = GetTickC
