Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17727
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17723
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=17721
Your paranoid android
On 4/7/12 12:48 PM, Morten Rønne wrote:
How should I go about moving it? Should the patch (as it has been
commited) be removed from wine or should I send a new one, based on
the current state?
Send a new patch based on current state. You can also change it a little
later, e.g. while improving D
Dear Piotr
I have found the flag by testing urlcache functions and look into the cache.
After that I added it together with the other definitions of that flag
field.
As this is sort of internal to urlcache, I wouldn't be surprised if this
is not defined in any official header.
How should I go
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
> Thanks. GCC 4.7 must be smart enough to detect the same if-conditions,
> and doesn't issue a warning for me. Kind of impressive, actually.
>
> Andrew
>
GCC 4.5 wasn't that smart yet.
--
Józef Kucia
