On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:43:29 +0200
Piotr Caban wrote:
> On the other hand there are other benefits of preferring builtin dlls
> over native ones. Thanks to it the dll is tested by more users. Because
> there are no reported bugs related to msvcr90 I would prefer to use
> builtin dll in this ca
On 05/17/13 10:47, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Piotr Caban wrote:
Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
...
msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
As f
Piotr Caban wrote:
> >>> Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
> > ...
> >> msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
> >> dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
> >
> > Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
> >
> As far as I remember m
On 05/17/13 10:22, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Piotr Caban wrote:
Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
...
msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
As f
Piotr Caban wrote:
> > Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
...
> msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
> dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
--
Dmitry.
On 05/17/13 08:01, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
---
dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c b/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c
index 7a7aafe..ce56c14 10
