On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note that reverse engineering by disassembly is not the same
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 17:27 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 09:58 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 09:58 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note
On Sunday 05 August 2007 17:27:23 you wrote:
Thanks for your comments Kai.
My pleasure.
It's also not allowed to break other laws while developing software.
Where would you draw the line? Disassembling software is (almost always)
illegal. Killing people is illegal. Should both be in the
On Sunday 05 August 2007 18:06:28 Jakob Eriksson wrote:
Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it
Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
OK, fair enough. Even though i did'nt like messing around with
joystick_linuxinput.c i should have been smarter than trying to submit
something i could not test... :-(
But... tada!... now i have re-fixed it and re-tested both
implementations. Its seems stable now. :-)
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 12:04 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Peter Dons Tychsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Yes i did testing on Windows-XP. I did it by putting together various
examples and by checking with InSendMessage() for all cases. This
clearly showed that WM_ACTIVATEAPP was always
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 21:12 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 12:04 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Peter Dons Tychsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Yes i did testing on Windows-XP. I did it by putting together various
examples and by checking with InSendMessage() for
Hi,
(I've just remembered that there is a limit on the email size, so I'm doing it a
bit differently now. The other email, including the screenshots, will probably
come through as well)
Before sending this to wine-patches I would like people to have a look first.
This patch makes sure that
Paul Vriens wrote:
Hi,
(I've just remembered that there is a limit on the email size, so I'm
doing it a
bit differently now. The other email, including the screenshots, will
probably come through as well)
Before sending this to wine-patches I would like people to have a look
first.
This
Peter Dons Tychsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This piece of code, if inserted into the test system, could (on original
Windows) show us which messages we are incorrectly posting or sending. I
can probably also be used for other test purposes. I works by checking
the call stack for the calls
Chris Robinson wrote:
+
+/* End */
+{NULL, 0}
};
[..]
-for (i = 0; i (sizeof(EXTENSION_MAP) / sizeof(*EXTENSION_MAP));
++i) {
+for (i = 0; EXTENSION_MAP[i].extension_string; ++i) {
What was the reason for this change? It's a static const array why do you
Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
By browsing MSDN, i found out that i can accomplish this by using the
documented function StalkWalk64(), which can examine the call stack. I
would then introduce this into the test system for DLLs like user32.
By running the test on original Windows we could know
Kai Blin wrote:
On Sunday 05 August 2007 04:23:15 Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
It was regarding the fact that it is not allowed to disassemble and
reverse engineer Microsoft DLLs. I understand this part, as their
license prohibits it (EULA).
Please note that reverse engineering by
Kai Blin wrote:
Why would you even bother to disassemble to write a unit test? All Wine cares
about is What's the output of function X when I put in Y and Z as
parameters?. That's why you write a conformance test that will run on
Windows. Then you make Wine behave the same. No need to
Am Freitag, 3. August 2007 18:18 schrieb H. Verbeet:
On 03/08/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ok(SUCCEEDED(hr) || hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL,
IDirect3DDevice9_CreateTexture: %s\n, DXGetErrorString9(hr));
Same comment as for yesterday's test (even though that one
This type of construct seems popular in the wine source:
while (isspace(*GL_Extensions)) GL_Extensions++;
Start = GL_Extensions;
Or even worse (I've seen this in winex11.drv, and it took me quite a
long time until I understood it - it was part of a larger block with a
lot these constructs):
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 23:23 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Peter Dons Tychsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This piece of code, if inserted into the test system, could (on original
Windows) show us which messages we are incorrectly posting or sending. I
can probably also be used for other
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 21:13 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 21:12 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 12:04 +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Peter Dons Tychsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Yes i did testing on Windows-XP. I did it by putting
On Sunday 05 August 2007 02:23:11 pm Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Chris Robinson wrote:
+
+/* End */
+{NULL, 0}
};
[..]
-for (i = 0; i (sizeof(EXTENSION_MAP) /
sizeof(*EXTENSION_MAP)); ++i) { +for (i = 0;
EXTENSION_MAP[i].extension_string; ++i) {
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 01:26 +0200, Peter Dons Tychsen wrote:
I will go back and redo the tests with this approach, now that you have
torpedoed my idea, which i probably deserved.
OK. To recover from my earlier brain-dead idea, i think i have came up
with a much simpler solution, based on your
21 matches
Mail list logo
