https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47970 Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |z.figura12(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Zebediah Figura <z.figura12(a)gmail.com> --- Nice work, David. I assume this on top of current Staging is enough? With respect to 0001, I think the better thing to do is move NtContinue() into the signal_* files. Though why that check is there in the first place, I'm less sure. Can NtContinue() really return an error code? And we already have such a check in NtSetContextThread()... 0002 deserves more careful scrutiny, but the idea of returning to the syscall thunk is sensible; we already do the same thing for i386. 0003 does two things. Using NtContinue() makes sense on the model of the current Staging patch; manually setting %ds is probably correct but (a) deserves tests, and probably we should test all the other segment registers, (b) signal_i386 takes care of that in setup_raise_exception(), and so we should maybe do the same? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.