http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650
pouech(a)winehq.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |990
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:43 -------
added dependency to 990
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834
------- Additional Comments From fgouget(a)codeweavers.com 2003-01-08 14:43 -------
Would this work for dumping a stack trace when winedbg is triggered on an
unhandled SEH?
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845
fgouget(a)codeweavers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From fgouget(a)codeweavers.com 2003-01-08 14:42 -------
I have not tested remote debugging myself but others on the list seem to be
using it. So I guess this task can be considered done (new bug reports can be
opened for future bugs if needed).
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833
pouech(a)winehq.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|wine-bugs(a)winehq.com |pouech(a)winehq.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:40 -------
I already planned to implement it. Among the difficulties to deal with:
- creation of the calling stack (we could use the program's own stack, but that
could be risky)
- there's no information in current stabs format whether a function is stdcall
or cdecl, which could of course generate some bad bad bad results ;-) (we could
try to infer it from some other bits... function prolog/epilog for example)
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063
pouech(a)winehq.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|wine-bugs(a)winehq.com |pouech(a)winehq.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:38 -------
do you have the URL to test such a program ?
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:33 -------
I think we do have the correct code, don't we ?
ready for closing the bug ?
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963
pouech(a)winehq.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pouech(a)winehq.com
AssignedTo|wine-bugs(a)winehq.com |pouech(a)winehq.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:31 -------
is the bug still occurs with current CVS code ?
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:30 -------
IMO, we shouldn't add C++ ABI support to winedbg
I'd suggest to:
1/ fix winedbg to not spit out too many traces while loading C++ compiled
modules (see 990)
2/ encourage gdb usage + proxy for C++ developement
3/ of course, integrate into gdb the PDB/MSC parsing/loading we have in winedbg
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834
------- Additional Comments From pouech(a)winehq.com 2003-01-08 14:28 -------
as I already wrote, IMO Dwarf support should be provided thru gdb only
we will better off with gdb than writting our own debugger
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://bugs.winehq.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hello,
while developing an application for WINE (also intended to run under
MSPOW = MicroSoft's Parody Of WINE, spoken "m-spow";-) I encountered
something which I consider a bug in WINE:
When I invoke EnableMenuItem to enable/disable a menu item holding
a command with the numeric value 200, the first popup menu is
enabled/disabled instead of the menu item. (This behaviour does not
show up under MSPOW, version "ME".)
IMHO this is due to a wrong order of two "if" conditions in
control/menu.c:MENU_FindItem().
I am attaching a patch which fixed the problem for me.
Greetings,
Peter, wondering why item->wID has a
value of 200 in the first place
--
Software Patents = professional disbarment for programmers
http://swpat.ffii.org