Actually, I just thought about one more solution. You could open the
object with using an access right of 0, meaning that anything is
accepted, then check the access right manually. Still a bit of a kludge,
but I think it is better than the brute force chaining.
Yeah, I'm not really happy with
Robert Shearman wrote:
Mike McCormack wrote:
I think this is a little ugly. I'd prefer to see this code do a
switch on obj->ops and call the relevant function with the raw
object instead of a handle.
I know it's ugly; I rewrote that bit three times, including once with
an ops->signal() method.
Mike McCormack wrote:
I think this is a little ugly. I'd prefer to see this code do a
switch on obj->ops and call the relevant function with the raw object
instead of a handle.
I know it's ugly; I rewrote that bit three times, including once with
an ops->signal() method. Implementing a object
I think this is a little ugly. I'd prefer to see this code do a switch
on obj->ops and call the relevant function with the raw object instead
of a handle.
I know it's ugly; I rewrote that bit three times, including once with an
ops->signal() method. Implementing a object operation requires tha
Mike McCormack wrote:
ChangeLog:
* implement NtSignalAndWaitForSingleObject
Index: server/thread.c
===
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/server/thread.c,v
retrieving revision 1.110
diff -u -p -r1.110 thread.c
--- server/thread.c 4 Mar 200