Michael Stefaniuc mstef...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
This is a bug in clang. There is no null pointer dereference.
Afair gcc tried to pull
On 12/11/2012 10:20 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Michael Stefaniuc mstef...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
This is a bug in clang. There is no
Francois Gouget fgou...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -88,12 +88,11 @@ $JobArchiveDays = 0;
if (!$::BuildEnv)
{
$::BuildEnv = 0;
- eval 'require $::RootDir/ConfigLocal.pl;';
+ eval 'require $::RootDir/lib/WineTestBot/ConfigLocal.pl';
if ($@)
{
-print STDERR Please create a
On 11 December 2012 04:16, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote:
+ * Copyright 2012 The Wine Project
I don't think that kind of thing really makes sense unless you also
define The Wine Project as some kind of legal entity somewhere.
+TRACE((0x%p, %d, %p)\n, hinstDLL, fdwReason,
Hi Hans,
On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which shows that
revocation checks fail for the certificate on outlook.com when passed straight
to CertVerifyRevocation. The reason is that a CRL link specified in the
certificate
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which shows
that
revocation checks fail for the certificate on outlook.com when passed
straight
to CertVerifyRevocation. The
Hi,
Here's my proposal:
winealsa shall stop enumerating ALSA devices. By default, it should
solely provide access to ALSA's default device adequately named default.
The code that currently scans the registry
Software\Wine\Drivers\winealsa.drv\devices=... shall remain in place,
allowing a
On 11 December 2012 16:05, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote:
Cost to users:
Users with a working ALSA device default should experience no
drawback, only benefits. I believe this is the vast majority of users.
Users that edit their ~/.asoundrc to define other devices without
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget fgou...@codeweavers.com writes:
@@ -88,12 +88,11 @@ $JobArchiveDays = 0;
if (!$::BuildEnv)
{
$::BuildEnv = 0;
- eval 'require $::RootDir/ConfigLocal.pl;';
+ eval 'require
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Henri Verbeet hverb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2012 04:16, Austin English austinengl...@gmail.com wrote:
+ * Copyright 2012 The Wine Project
I don't think that kind of thing really makes sense unless you also
define The Wine Project as some kind of
On 12/11/2012 10:46 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 11 December 2012 16:05, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote:
Cost to users:
Users with a working ALSA device default should experience no
drawback, only benefits. I believe this is the vast majority of users.
Users that edit their
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury
m...@mtew.isa-geek.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 10:46 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 11 December 2012 16:05, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote:
Cost to users:
Users with a working ALSA device default should experience no
drawback, only
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker h...@codeweavers.comwrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which
shows that
revocation checks fail for the
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:52 -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker h...@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Hans Leidekker h...@codeweavers.comwrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:52 -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker h...@codeweavers.com
wrote:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 12/11/12
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:41:16 -0500
J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:43:14AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
can try to prevent them by:
1) specifying an extra security bit on the file
16 matches
Mail list logo
