Jukka Heinonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, even with some performance issues, it looks like
> instruction emulation is needed for supporting some pure
> Win95/98/ME programs. It would seem a bit strange we try very
> hard to support Win31 and WinNT based programs but not those.
Sure, we
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 09:17, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
> Well, now that you say it, when I tested the demo for Tomb Raider 3 on Win2K
> (to check some slight graphical corruptions), it crashed at start-up... So
> the game does not even check for Windows version before doing its hacks.
>
> Let's hope we
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:42:49PM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> What changed is that emulation of these instructions was deliberately
> removed ;-)
I should have guessed that they were sacrified due to the DLL separation :-)
> This was done for dll separation reasons, and because they are n
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> What changed is that emulation of these instructions was deliberately
> removed ;-)
>
> This was done for dll separation reasons, and because they are not
> emulated under NT either (which also means better performance for the
> exception handling). What happens if you r
Lionel Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some games that worked pretty well in Wine (like, for example, Tomb Raider
> 3) are now failing with latest CVS due to :
>
> Unhandled exception: privileged instruction in 32-bit code (0x0048e2e1).
>
> So I was wondering what changed in the Wine code that
Hi all,
Some games that worked pretty well in Wine (like, for example, Tomb Raider
3) are now failing with latest CVS due to :
Unhandled exception: privileged instruction in 32-bit code (0x0048e2e1).
So I was wondering what changed in the Wine code that suppressed the
emulation of these instruct
