> And now that I know that, I certainly won't be doing it again. Thank you for your understaning.
> Well, I still have an application that won't run under wine because this > function is not implemented. So assuming *this* patch doesn't get in, > what can I do to help get *a* patch in that implements this function? I > can blow away my sandbox and start from scratch, but I suspect you would > find that insufficient. Maybe I should find a hypnotist to make me forget > what I saw in the debugger :) :) > Would it be acceptable for me to write up a description of what the > function needs to do, so that someone else can do a clean-room > implementation? It would probably take a reasonably experienced C/COM > developer all of about 5 minutes, since this function is really just a > wrapper of an already-implemented function. Is there anyone out there who > would volunteer to do it if I were to write a description of the function? I think that would be acceptable, yes. We have implemented things with hints from people who've studied disassembly before. Do you have a bug open? Sorry, I've forgotten. If not, please do open one. You can describe your findings there. > If I provided a patch to dlls/oleaut32/tests/olepicture.c adding tests > that verify the behaviors of the functions, would that be accepted? Or is > writing tests for functions you've seen the disassembly for also > prohibited? In general, writing tests is okay, as they are an exercise in black-box reverse engineering, which is what's allowed. So yeah, tests would be great. --Juan