Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But this means turning a blind eye on thousands of warnings. Sending a
> single patch fixing all the warnings is out of the question, it would be
> way too big. But doing it file by file means introducing warnings until
> we make the global switch i
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Peter Hunnisett wrote:
> > During my test I was greeted by thousands of warnings. But except for
> >one fix in gdiobj.c and another in registry.c it compiled and I could
> >even run the whole Wine regression test suite: sol.exe :-)
>
> Doesn't surprise me too much. I suppos
> During my test I was greeted by thousands of warnings. But except for
>one fix in gdiobj.c and another in registry.c it compiled and I could
>even run the whole Wine regression test suite: sol.exe :-)
Doesn't surprise me too much. I suppose that it's also important to actually
get the wine cor
On 12 Oct 2000, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Also, why do we define HANDLE as an int if STRICT is not defined?
> > Win32 always defines it as 'void*', whether STRICT is defined or not. So
> > we should in fact distinguish between WINE and 'not
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Also, why do we define HANDLE as an int if STRICT is not defined?
> Win32 always defines it as 'void*', whether STRICT is defined or not. So
> we should in fact distinguish between WINE and 'not WINE'.
No, this is wrong, we must never define types
