On 09/03/13 13:51, Qian Hong wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban ja...@codeweavers.com wrote:
Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm
not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions
are forwarded, others are not, so having one
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong fract...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
Oh, I just found
+WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(atl);
Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
On 09/03/13 13:28, Qian Hong wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong fract...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban ja...@codeweavers.com wrote:
Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm
not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions
are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel would be
guarantee
