http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13125
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Dorofeyev alexd4@inbox.lv 2008-05-12 18:04:56 --- (In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7) This time I always marked it a "good" one if Fahrenheit was either playable OR crashed NOT when starting a new game, but right after launching it for example. I will test the demo tomorrow, it still hasn't not loaded fully.
I'm afraid this is not how this is done (if I'm reading you right). You mark the revision good or bad during bisect if and only if you can successfully get to the point in program where it usually shows up and then get consistent results there. Otherwise you end up with unreliable, probably wrong results.
Unfortunately, sometimes when bisecting you can't get to the required spot in the program, because, for example, the game crashes in that revision earlier than you can test (because of other bugs). That's where it gets much more difficult than usual routine. If it happens, the only (right) way is to find fixes for other bugs (which are not relevant to your bisect and are an interference) and then port those fixes to revision you test for bisect. I realize this is probably more than can be expected from users who are not developers themselves.