Ok this is some good feedback... (usually i dont get such a massive response
from emails...)
-- I was under the impression that RFC was the second to last line of
defense (so it appears to be the third)
I do not use IRC (unless you count the irc client in Tribes)
I can demacroize the patch -- it was written that way to make it small and
easy to add to (since 99% of the functions are pure passthru -- one extra
line to the macro adds it and all that it needs)
Personally I think its cleaner -- but it has the problem of being a macro
"There not much worse than a macro -- except dare I mention templates (the
crowd runs for cover)"
Again -- for the sound drivers -- Mac OSX has ONE sound driver ONE
I would like to have a choice.
Yes my wineopenal patch is not perfect (based on broken code does not help)
-- I know that -- but thats why i want to get it into wine -- so other
people who know more about audio can add to it and make it better
If the audio drivers are going to collapse -- I could wait until then and
'try' add my winmm patch in that realm.
- Nick
From: Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Nick Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wine-devel <wine-devel@winehq.org>
Subject: Re: Concerning the separate OpenAL32.dll thunk patch and
OpenALwinmm driver patch
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:58:36 +0100
Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know, if wineaudio.drv this is still the way to go, but we have
> sound crackeling and Buffer-underun Bugs, and adding another copy of
> the "not very well working" code might be a "no go" for Alexandre.
Exactly, we already have 8 sound drivers, and not a single one
actually works properly, so I'm pretty reluctant to add yet another
copy of the same broken code.
The openal dll can certainly go in, but you'll need to clean up the
code first, right now it looks like a pretty bad case of macro abuse.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
