https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41066 --- Comment #2 from Matt Robinson <wine-bugzilla(a)nerdoftheherd.com> --- (In reply to André H. from comment #1)
confirming
Funny, your patch https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/125193 is somewhat like my first attempt on that issue in 2011: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2011-December/110003.html :)
IIRC we tried to avoid __TRY and then this patch was committed: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2012-August/117176.html
Wow! I don't think those patches could be much more similar if I'd seen yours before I'd submitted mine... Even down to the use of 0xdeadbeef as the test value! Good to see that great minds think alike although mildly disappointing to realise I could have saved quite a lot of digging around the source with some better Google skills. Do you remember why it was preferred to avoid __TRY when you revised your patch? -- 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.