Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'll be out skiing next week, so there won't be any commits. Next
> release should still be on schedule two weeks from now.
>
>
Be safe on the slopes and come back to the project without any
additional hardware!
James McKenzie
On 03/05/2010 02:34 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:11:59PM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:17:15AM -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
>>> It seems that another distro, SuSE 11.x, has Wine-64 compiled by default for
>>> x86_64 platforms. That explains
Hi Dan,
The GameTree.tv SDK has a bunch of different moving pieces to it, but
essentially consists of a modified version of Cedega that targets
Intel's embedded CE platform and OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0. The emulation
SDK integrates Imagination Technologies' OpenGL ES emulator to allow
testing on
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:11:59PM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:17:15AM -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> > It seems that another distro, SuSE 11.x, has Wine-64 compiled by default for
> > x86_64 platforms. That explains all the issues people been having on SuSE
> > lat
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:17:15AM -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
> It seems that another distro, SuSE 11.x, has Wine-64 compiled by default for
> x86_64 platforms. That explains all the issues people been having on SuSE
> lately.
>
> Marcus, could you please create a separate package wine-64 inst
Saw this on Slashdot:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/2155235/North-Koreas-Own-OS-Red-Star?art_pos=6
seems wine is being used:
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-03-01/north-korea-cyber-weapon.html?fullstory
http://rt.com/s/obj/2010-03-01/win.jpg
--
-Austin
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Anyone seen the sdk at http://www.gametree.tv/developers/ yet?
> I hesitate to download it, but perhaps someone out there is braver, and can
> describe what it includes?
>
>
>
'It's the future'
'we are looking at the next, next, generation of n
Henri Verbeet a écrit :
On 5 March 2010 13:21, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
You can add that to an existing request like get_process_info. We don't
want a separate request for each bit of process information. The kernel
side should probably be based on NtQueryProcessInformation anyway.
T
Folks,
I'll be out skiing next week, so there won't be any commits. Next
release should still be on schedule two weeks from now.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Woops, as I was looking at the status of 59017 after submitting it, I noticed
that Kusanagi Kouichi already submitted an effectively similar patch at 59001
which does a better job of fixing the problem. Patch ID 59018 should still be
useful though.
It seems that another distro, SuSE 11.x, has Wine-64 compiled by default for
x86_64 platforms. That explains all the issues people been having on SuSE
lately.
Marcus, could you please create a separate package wine-64 instead and build
32-bit Wine by default for x86_64 arch instead?
Vitaliy.
On 5 March 2010 13:21, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> You can add that to an existing request like get_process_info. We don't
> want a separate request for each bit of process information. The kernel
> side should probably be based on NtQueryProcessInformation anyway.
>
There's ProcessDebugObjectHand
The main thing we lack at this point is an opencl32 -> libCL (or is it
libopencl) wrapper. Though it might be wise to wait a bit with it
since the library isn't stable yet. Right now vendors have their own
libs but it seems to be moving to an ICD mechanism similar to opengl.
This might influence th
Has anyone investigated wine support for OpenCL apps?
What is required to support Win32 OpenCL apps, assuming the host machine
has modern hardware, like an NVidia GT240?
Henri Verbeet writes:
> ---
> dlls/kernel32/debugger.c | 15 ++--
> dlls/kernel32/tests/debugger.c | 44 ++-
> server/debugger.c | 12 ++
> server/protocol.def|8 +++
> 4 files changed, 74 insertions
On 03/05/2010 01:06 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
Does these ones "\x10\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00" or
"\x10\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x02\x00CK" work better ?
If not I think it's better to comment out these tests until I find a
better header.
Again, fails on all platforms.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Does these ones "\x10\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00" or
"\x10\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x02\x00CK" work better ?
If not I think it's better to comment out these tests until I find a better
header.
> Message du 05/03/10 12:03
> De : "Paul Vriens"
> A : "Christian Costa"
> Copie à : wine-devel@winehq.o
On 03/05/2010 11:25 AM, Christian Costa wrote:
It seems even if the file is empty a valid mszip header is needed.
Does using "\x9a\x10\x00\x00\x8a\x10\x00\x00" or
"\x9a\x10\x00\x00\x8a\x10\x02\x00CK" instead of "\n" help ?
Nope, doesn't help. Now it fails on all platforms.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On 3/5/2010 13:53, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 03/05/2010 11:16 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 3/1/2010 20:01, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:56 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Implement SHFormatDateTimeA/SHFormatDateTimeW with tests.
Spotted in logs while testing IE6.
Hi Nikolay,
This one introduces
On 03/05/2010 11:16 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 3/1/2010 20:01, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:56 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Implement SHFormatDateTimeA/SHFormatDateTimeW with tests.
Spotted in logs while testing IE6.
Hi Nikolay,
This one introduces failures on what appears Vista+ :
htt
It seems even if the file is empty a valid mszip header is needed.
Does using "\x9a\x10\x00\x00\x8a\x10\x00\x00" or
"\x9a\x10\x00\x00\x8a\x10\x02\x00CK" instead of "\n" help ?
> Message du 05/03/10 10:15
> De : "Paul Vriens"
> A : "Christian Costa"
> Copie à : wine-devel@winehq.org
> Objet :
On 3/1/2010 20:01, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:56 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Implement SHFormatDateTimeA/SHFormatDateTimeW with tests.
Spotted in logs while testing IE6.
Hi Nikolay,
This one introduces failures on what appears Vista+ :
http://test.winehq.org/data/tests/shlwapi:ordinal
On 03/05/2010 10:06 AM, Paul Vriens wrote:
On 03/01/2010 11:48 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
Paul Vriens a écrit :
On 03/01/2010 09:36 AM, Christian Costa wrote:
---
dlls/d3dxof/d3dxof.c | 39 ++---
dlls/d3dxof/tests/d3dxof.c | 82
2 f
On 03/01/2010 11:48 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
Paul Vriens a écrit :
On 03/01/2010 09:36 AM, Christian Costa wrote:
---
dlls/d3dxof/d3dxof.c | 39 ++---
dlls/d3dxof/tests/d3dxof.c | 82
2 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 12 deletion
24 matches
Mail list logo
