2009/3/4 Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com:
Hi,
We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for advapi32:security :
security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- Invalid access to memory location.
Google
Reece Dunn wrote:
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com:
Hi,
We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for advapi32:security :
security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- Invalid access to memory location.
Google
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Austin English wrote:
AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
where this function is not used.
Resending with a proper extension.
Why does your patch modify dlls/ntdll/virtual.c? It seems to me that
this should be separate.
--
Francois Gouget
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com:
Reece Dunn wrote:
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com:
We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for
advapi32:security :
security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
998 = ERROR_NOACCESS --
Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com writes:
But why suddenly? I hate it when something like that happens.
For the winehq.org builds that's most likely because the Debian updates
brought in a new MinGW.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com writes:
AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
where this function is not used.
That's on purpose, the function is supposed to be used on other
platforms too.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
The two changes are independent so they should be in separate patches.
About afxres.h vs. winres.h vs. winresrc.h, I believe it's mostly
IDC_STATIC that was needed from winres.h. Unfortunately it's not being
defined anywhere these days. In fact, all the Microsoft samples define
it themselves.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
proxy is an effective solution?
No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly, inefficient, and
it doesn't help anything since the wineserver constraints that you are
I don't understand Wine's named pipe or completion implementations,
but I can at least explain what the test is observing.
http://test.winehq.org/data/566cb8c7a32f6128ae7d05f7fab30db08ba64ea4/wine_ae-ub-904-heap/kernel32:pipe.html
ConnectNamedPipe is setting ERROR_ALREADY_CONNECTED, but it's
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Francois Gouget fgou...@free.fr wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Austin English wrote:
AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
where this function is not used.
Resending with a proper extension.
Why does your patch modify
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
+if ( !lpcchSize ) {
+SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+return FALSE;
+SetLastError(ERROR_MORE_DATA);
+}
+}
+}
+else
+
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com writes:
AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
where this function is not used.
That's on purpose, the function is supposed to be used on other
Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com writes:
Is there any intention to add that in the near future? Or should I
file a bug? That's currently the only compiler warning on FreeBSD
(which is the first we've had in a while)...
I'm not planning to add it, that's why there is a warning, to
2009/3/4 Andreas Rosenberg andreas.rosenb...@apis.de
Sorry, but I disagree with you opinion.
A conformance test should verify if an API call works like documented.
The MSDN documentation specifies nothing regarding error codes for
GetUserProfileDirectory.
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 21:32 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
Luckily it seems MoinMoin has a feature that provides exactly this:
http://moinmo.in/TextCha
However on that page it only mentions a challenge question for commits
which wasn't quite what I wanted so I took a look at the source for
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
+if ( !lpcchSize ) {
+SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+return FALSE;
+SetLastError(ERROR_MORE_DATA);
+}
+}
+}
+else
+
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
proxy is an effective solution?
No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
proxy is an effective solution?
No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dimi Paun d...@lattica.com wrote:
And if we don't implement captchas for saves (which I personally would
hate but maybe others would be OK with it), I'm not sure it would save
us all that much spam to begin with, as spammer do create accounts
manually and the
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
priorities. technically correctly fulfilling the semantics i would
imagine would be the highest priority.
efficient and nice can always be done later, yes?
No, in many
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
proxy is an effective solution?
No, you
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 11:59 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
I wouldn't really want per save captcha either, per account creation
is what I was hoping would cut down the spam. If the accounts are
created manually not much we can do about it :(
I think that's the case. Which is why I think it's not
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
For whatever reason Win95 was always failing this test with i greater than 5
and
now it's less than 5 (since yesterday!). This will crash as the rest of the
tests rely on that exact number (we have 5
how would you envisage doing client-side SMB named pipes?
By doing the I/O through the wineserver. It has all the necessary
mechanisms already.
ok - great. whereabouts? which ones? any existing examples? which
existing code in wineserver utilises the existing mechanisms to which
you refer?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
priorities. technically correctly fulfilling the semantics i would
imagine would be the
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
how would you envisage doing client-side SMB named pipes?
By doing the I/O through the wineserver. It has all the necessary
mechanisms already.
ok - great. whereabouts? which ones? any existing examples? which
existing code in wineserver
So y'all can have a warm fuzzy feeling today:
-- Forwarded message --
From: lodewig wineforum-u...@winehq.org
Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Subject: [Wine] COMPLIMENT TO WINE STAFF
To: wine-us...@winehq.org
Installed Metatrader 4 under Wine 1.1.16 , Ubuntu 8.10 , no any
2009/3/5 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
priorities. technically correctly
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net writes:
i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
priorities. technically correctly fulfilling
Dan Kegel wrote:
Paul Bryan Roberts write:
The code as it stands creates makefiles with a mode of 600. This may be
benign on most (e.g. personal workstation) installations but not all.
An example is where the wine git repository is located on an NFS
volume. Here security settings may
Dimi Paun d...@lattica.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 11:59 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
I wouldn't really want per save captcha either, per account creation
is what I was hoping would cut down the spam. If the accounts are
created manually not much we can do about it :(
I think that's the
31 matches
Mail list logo
