Dmitry Timoshkov dmi...@baikal.ru writes:
Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
I don't see the point. Do you actually have an app that depends on this?
When I started to work on this I had an app that has one of the reasons to
require running under Vista+ was the difference in
Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
I don't see the point. Do you actually have an app that depends on this?
When I started to work on this I had an app that has one of the reasons to
require running under Vista+ was the difference in overlapped IO behavior.
On the other hand
Dmitry Timoshkov dmi...@baikal.ru writes:
Do you propose to leave NtWriteFile/NtReadFile in the state when they
return STATUS_SUCCESS for overlapped writes and reads? But that's clearly
not how Windows implements this accordingto the tests, and that would
require changing all the tests to
Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
Do you propose to leave NtWriteFile/NtReadFile in the state when they
return STATUS_SUCCESS for overlapped writes and reads? But that's clearly
not how Windows implements this accordingto the tests, and that would
require changing all the
Dmitry Timoshkov dmi...@baikal.ru writes:
---
dlls/ntdll/file.c | 3 ++-
dlls/ntdll/tests/file.c | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
I don't see the point. Do you actually have an app that depends on this?
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
I don't see the point. Do you actually have an app that depends on this?
When I started to work on this I had an app that has one of the reasons to
require running under Vista+ was the difference in overlapped IO behavior.
On the other hand the
