Alexandre wrote:
The changes may be small but they are ugly IMO. I don't think we need
a configure option for that, it should be possible to simply do a
'make CFLAGS=xxx' with the appropriate options.
We used a configure option by analogy with --disable-debug, I guess,
and because it seems to be th
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:32 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The changes may be small but they are ugly IMO. I don't think we need
> a configure option for that, it should be possible to simply do a
> 'make CFLAGS=xxx' with the appropriate options.
OK, I don't really care how it's activated as l
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also the patch looks small, it's mostly documentation, and minimally
> invasive. I see no reason to reject it, hopefully Alexandre has just been
> bogged down with the WM rewrite and the huge volume of patches going in
> lately.
The changes may be small bu
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:39:00 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
> I think the issue with this patch is that it isn't it doesn't appear to
> be useful for a significant number of people and could be maintained as
> an external patch by the people who do think it's useful. Maybe you
> could try to pers
Aaron Arvey wrote:
This is the third or fourth resend... anything I'm unaware of?
We're using gcov and lcov to measure how well the Wine test suite
covers the wine source tree. Here's our first cut at making it easy
to run wine compiled for coverage testing, and view the results
using the simple