I'll run the latest on my G4 tonight and we can see.
Best Wishes,
Greg
On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:05 AM, David Kirkman wrote:
I ran the testsuite against the current HEAD (as of saturday
afternoon)
and had far fewer failures. Is the last week's work supposed to have
fixed so many test cases?
Hi
If there is no better solution, would it be possible on failure to somehow
enter a critical section and repeat the call that caused the failure and
then call get last error and exit the critical section so that normal calls
would be fast but only failed calls would be slow?
No. This isn't H
Brian Hulley wrote:
>> The only way to solve this problem seems to be to wrap all
>> calls in C-functions that take care of reading GetLastError.
>> Not that it's impossible, just very annoying.
>
> If there is no better solution, would it be possible on failure to
> somehow enter a critical sect
Esa Ilari Vuokko wrote:
Hi,
My "use case" is in Win32-package, where we simply call a FFI
imported call and on failures call GetLastError to get extended
error code. GetLastError of course only works on same OS thread
and contains sensible results only before next Windows API call.
It's much li
Hi,
My "use case" is in Win32-package, where we simply call a FFI
imported call and on failures call GetLastError to get extended
error code. GetLastError of course only works on same OS thread
and contains sensible results only before next Windows API call.
It's much like C/posix errno.
So, we
