[Bug 9358] New: DirectSoundDevice_SetCooperativeLevel level= DSSCL_PRIORITY not fully supported

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Summary: DirectSoundDevice_SetCooperativeLevel
                    level=DSSCL_PRIORITY not fully supported
           Product: Wine
           Version: 0.9.43.
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: wine-directx-dsound
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]

Since 1631 "Sound underruns occur in directsound" got closed Im opening a new
bug.

Basically Sound works, but is very choppy, garbled and eats CPU time slowing
game down.

http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=7624
 WINEDEBUG=warn+dsound wine ja2.exe

this is Jagged Alliance 2 with JA2 V1.13 Mod
JA2 V1.13 Mod install instructions :
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/5672...
or short one : do "svn co https://81.169.133.124/source/ja2_v1.13_data/GameDir"
in game directory

http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=7625
It´s actually a music tracker I´m using, not a game. You can download
Famitracker from http://famitracker.shoodot.net/files/ft_v026.zip and open a
.ftm file from http://2a03.free.fr/?p=pub&type=ftm to reproduce this.

Happens in games using Fmod.

maybe a patch? http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=4331

[Bug 9358] DirectSoundDevice_SetCooperativeLevel level= DSSCL_PRIORITY not fully supported

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #1 from Jesse Allen   2007-08-18 09:12:13 ---
What kernel version are you using? I recommend trying 2.6.23-rc? if you can.

[Bug 9358] DirectSoundDevice_SetCooperativeLevel level= DSSCL_PRIORITY not fully supported

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #2 from rasz   2007-08-18 11:12:27 ---
I'm using latest supported ubuntu kernel, 2.6.20-16
this bug doesn't occur under Cedega

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Maarten Lankhorst  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
            Summary|DirectSoundDevice_SetCoopera|Low latency interactive
                   |tiveLevel                   |buffers are not mixed
                   |level=DSSCL_PRIORITY not    |properly in directsound
                   |fully supported             |

--- Comment #3 from Maarten Lankhorst   2007-08-19 05:01:52 ---
I already told you what the real problem is, why make up a different Summary
then?

CHanging summary to better reflect upon the REAL problem..

Also same comment as in bug 1631 applies:

As a workaround you could try at frequency 22050, 8 or 16 bit, and
acceleration to 'Emulation'.

Another workaround you could set 'use direct hardware access' in alsa from
wiki.winehq.org/UsefulRegistryKeys - However that will forfeit the ability of
alsa to allow concurrent access.

See if those work for you

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Maarten Lankhorst  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #4 from Maarten Lankhorst   2007-08-19 05:02:24 ---
Oops

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #5 from rasz   2007-08-19 06:16:05 ---
> As a workaround you could try at frequency 22050, 8 or 16 bit, and
> acceleration to 'Emulation'.

tried all combinations, no change
> Another workaround you could set 'use direct hardware access' in alsa from
> wiki.winehq.org/UsefulRegistryKeys - However that will forfeit the ability of
> alsa to allow concurrent access.

it happens with Alsa and OSS, same programs work ok under Cedega with Alsa and
OSS so its not Alsa problem.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Maarten Lankhorst  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]        |[e-mail]
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #6 from Maarten Lankhorst   2007-08-19 12:52:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=7674)
 --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=7674)
Hack that increases frequency of directsound

If used with direct hardware this will probably decrease the amount of
underruns occuring, I can get to 45 ms in famitracker using alsa dmix with
period_size = 512, probably even lower if you actually use direct hardware
access. However it makes the system prone to underruns. It's a hack.

Jagged Alliance 2 might or might not work properly with this hack, too.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #7 from Maarten Lankhorst   2007-08-24 03:03:17 ---
I haven't heard feedback, does it help or not?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Simon Leonardsson  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #8 from Simon Leonardsson   2007-08-24 05:14:36 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I haven't heard feedback, does it help or not?

It doesn´t help at all for me. Getting down to 45ms is impossible. about 85 is
the lowest I can go, and even then I get a lot of underruns. Maybe it has to do
with my setup? I do not use dmix, since my audio card(emu10k1) supports
hardware mixing. I´ve tried different settings in winecfg, and also tried
using direct hardware access, but still no success. I also realized that I use
a pretty old alsa version (1.0.11rc4). Can that be the cause? I better upgrade
before I do any additional testing anyway...

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #9 from Simon Leonardsson   2007-08-24 09:19:36 ---
Upgraded to 1.0.14, but I couldn´t notice any difference..

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |telefragfromhell@googlemail.
                   |                            |com

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #10 from Simon   2007-10-11 09:47:21 ---
Finally followed Jesse Allen's advice to use a 2.6.23-rcX kernel, and it works
a lot better indeed. Took me some time to realize that the latest kernel
includes a new scheduler. Sorry for being such an asshole.

However, it is still not possible to use a buffer length of 40ms or lower than
that in Famitracker. Is this still a wine issue, or is it still some
scheduling/linux/other issue?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

rasz  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #11 from rasz   2007-10-11 13:24:52 ---
> Is this still a wine issue, or is it still some
> scheduling/linux/other issue?

it works 100% ok in Cedega on the same configuration, so its a Wine problem.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|telefragfromhell@googlemail.|
                   |com                         |

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Sylvain Petreolle  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #12 from Austin English   2008-06-04 11:25:35 ---
Is this still an issue in 1.0-rc3 or newer wine?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #13 from Sileon   2008-06-04 11:49:56 ---
Yeah, still present in 1.0-rc3.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #14 from Maarten Lankhorst   2008-06-04 13:17:02 ---
My explanation follows here, without a fix.

Imagine the hardware sound buffer like this:

[----XoooooX-----------------------]
      ^----------- read pointer up to write pointer.

DirectSound mixes every time the hardware (or dmix) read pointer advances,
unfortunately the read pointer advances in blocks (roughly) up to the next
write pointer.

The amount of time between read and write pointer is the maximum resolution
applications can use. In case of alsa it is 2x or 3x the period size. This is
roughly between 40 and 60 milliseconds in most cases. This means that
famitracker won't be able to read smaller then those sizes, unless I 'fake' the
position of the read/write pointer to artificially move with even smaller
intervals by making the reserved area 1 period longer and then fake moving
depending on how much time expired. I'm a bit hesitant to do this, but if it's
still a problem with v2.6.24 I might take a look into it.

--Maarten

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Jan Stępień  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail].n
                   |                            |et

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Austin English  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch

--- Comment #15 from Austin English   2008-12-08 04:11:45 ---
Is this still an issue in current (1.1.10 or newer) wine?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #16 from Austin English   2009-06-08 11:27:57 ---
Ping.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #17 from Sileon   2009-07-20 05:16:33 ---
Yes, this is still an issue in latest git.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Raymond  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #18 from Raymond   2010-03-31 19:52:16 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > I haven't heard feedback, does it help or not?
>
> It doesn´t help at all for me. Getting down to 45ms is impossible. about 85 is
> the lowest I can go, and even then I get a lot of underruns. Maybe it has to do
> with my setup? I do not use dmix, since my audio card(emu10k1) supports
> hardware mixing. I´ve tried different settings in winecfg, and also tried using
> direct hardware access, but still no success. I also realized that I use a
> pretty old alsa version (1.0.11rc4). Can that be the cause? I better upgrade
> before I do any additional testing anyway...

emu10k1 only support 48000Hz sample rate ,

yes it support hardware mixing when you use the correct device name "front"
since there are 64 subdevices with per voice volume controls which are
sufficient to implement 16 voices

EMU10K1.pcm.front.0 {
    @args [ CARD ]
    @args.CARD {
        type string
    }
    type hooks
    slave.pcm {
        type hw
        card $CARD
    }
    hooks.0 {
        type ctl_elems
        hook_args [
            {
                interface PCM
                name "EMU10K1 PCM Send Volume"
                index { @func private_pcm_subdevice }
                lock true
                optional true
                value [ 255 255 0 0 255 0 0 0 0 255 0 0 ]
            }
            {
                # for compatibility with older drivers
                name "EMU10K1 PCM Send Volume"
                index { @func private_pcm_subdevice }
                lock true
                optional true
                value [ 255 255 0 0 255 0 0 0 0 255 0 0 ]
            }
            {
                interface PCM
                name "EMU10K1 PCM Send Routing"
                index { @func private_pcm_subdevice }
                lock true
                optional true
                value [ 8 9 0 0 8 9 0 0 8 9 0 0 ]
            }
            {
                # for compatibility with older drivers
                name "EMU10K1 PCM Send Routing"
                index { @func private_pcm_subdevice }
                lock true
                optional true
                value [ 8 9 0 0 8 9 0 0 8 9 0 0 ]
            }
        ]
    }
}

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #19 from Maarten Lankhorst   2010-04-01 01:08:13 ---
If you set realtime priority, and really want the lowest latency wine doesn't
officially support it. But these settings would help:

int ds_snd_queue_max = 10;
int ds_snd_queue_min = 6;
int ds_snd_shadow_maxsize = 2;

Change to 4, 4, and -1 in dsound_main.c

in primary.c you have a function called DSOUND_fraglen, change it to return 256
instead of 512

That's probably about as low as it can get, tinkering with DSOUND_fraglen and
ds_snd_queue_max is the only way to go lower than 90ms, but it's not officially
supported. So do this at your own risk

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #20 from Raymond   2010-04-02 07:10:48 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> If you set realtime priority, and really want the lowest latency wine doesn't
> officially support it. But these settings would help:
>
> int ds_snd_queue_max = 10;
> int ds_snd_queue_min = 6;
> int ds_snd_shadow_maxsize = 2;
>
> Change to 4, 4, and -1 in dsound_main.c
>
> in primary.c you have a function called DSOUND_fraglen, change it to return 256
> instead of 512
>
> That's probably about as low as it can get, tinkering with DSOUND_fraglen and
> ds_snd_queue_max is the only way to go lower than 90ms, but it's not officially
> supported. So do this at your own risk

For ALSA , the period_size of those PCI sound cards are multiple of PCI brust
size  , wine seem to use period_time of 10ms but those wave file are usually
22050 Hz or 44100 Hz ( multiple of 3 )

Seem like those numbers in DSOUND_Fraglen are magic number

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #21 from Maarten Lankhorst   2010-04-02 07:33:56 ---
They are, sort of. Unfortunately alsa dmix uses power or 2 period sizes, and
since nobody has hardware mixing I used that function to find out how big a
period should be.

The current driver model doesn't allow me to know what the period size is, so I
use a rough approximation to keep it near 10 ms if the primary rate is 44100 or
48000 which it is by default. The real problem is that alsa dmix sucks, so I
have to work around its limitations. I really cannot when the expected latency
is <100ms, so Im stuck with an imperfect solution that works for most people.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #22 from Raymond   2010-04-04 04:56:03 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> The current driver model doesn't allow me to know what the period size is, so I
> use a rough approximation to keep it near 10 ms if the primary rate is 44100 or
> 48000 which it is by default.

http://www.realtek.com.tw/faqs/faqsView.aspx?Langid=1&PNid=2&PFid=6&...

Q6: When I ran the Microsoft DirectX Diagnostic tool (Dxdiag.exe) sound test on
a computer with Realtek audio driver (Windows Driver Model) installed, the test
did not run properly, and the operating system showed the following message:
"Your sound card does not support hardware buffering. Sound will only playback
from software buffers." What does this mean?

The message meant that your audio system doesn't support 22050Hz sampling rate.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #23 from Raymond   2010-04-06 20:14:49 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> They are, sort of. Unfortunately alsa dmix uses power or 2 period sizes, and
> since nobody has hardware mixing I used that function to find out how big a
> period should be.

the point is the period size of usbaudio is related to USB (URB) packet size

device dmix seem allow you to use any period size/period time , unfortunately
use can specified those parameters of the slave pcm of the sound cards in
.asoundrc or /usr/share/alsa/cards/*.conf

do you mean that you want to know the actual period size used by hw device ?

To achieve low latency , you have to use small period size but the minimum
period size of the sound cards are unlikely to be safe for all users with
different cpu speed , different loading

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #24 from Raymond   2010-04-06 20:39:01 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> since nobody has hardware mixing

there are at least three alsa drivers support per voice volume controls

http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-tools.git;a=blob_plain;f=hwmixvolume/REA...

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #25 from Raymond   2010-04-07 20:16:02 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> They are, sort of. Unfortunately alsa dmix uses power or 2 period sizes, and
> since nobody has hardware mixing I used that function to find out how big a
> period should be.

please note that even wine use alsa "default" device does not imply all sound
cards are configured to use dmix

http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-lib.git;a=blob_plain;f=src/conf/cards/CS...

# default with plughw
# CS46xx supports multi-playback

CS46xx.pcm.default {
    @args [ CARD ]
    @args.CARD {
        type string
    }
    type asym
    playback.pcm {
        type plug
        slave.pcm {
            @func concat
            strings [ "hw:" $CARD ]
        }
    }
    capture.pcm {
        type plug
        slave.pcm {
            @func concat
            strings [ "hw:" $CARD ]
        }
    }
}

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #26 from Raymond   2010-04-25 21:10:53 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> If you set realtime priority, and really want the lowest latency wine doesn't
> officially support it. But these settings would help:
>
> int ds_snd_queue_max = 10;
> int ds_snd_queue_min = 6;
> int ds_snd_shadow_maxsize = 2;
>
> Change to 4, 4, and -1 in dsound_main.c
>
> in primary.c you have a function called DSOUND_fraglen, change it to return 256
> instead of 512
>
> That's probably about as low as it can get, tinkering with DSOUND_fraglen and
> ds_snd_queue_max is the only way to go lower than 90ms, but it's not officially
> supported. So do this at your own risk

http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=7926eba0d5dd4e8b6360ba...

The point is wine set period time to 22000 but rate is 44100 and the most
common sound card is HDA which has a constraint of in period_bytes and
buffer_bytes

you cannot get exact period time 22000 and buffer time 120000

snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(runtime, 0, SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_BUFFER_BYTES,
128);
        snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(runtime, 0, SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_BYTES,
128);

http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-kernel.git;a=blob;f=sound/pci/hda/hda_in...

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #27 from Raymond   2010-05-05 21:24:37 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> They are, sort of. Unfortunately alsa dmix uses power or 2 period sizes, and
> since nobody has hardware mixing I used that function to find out how big a
> period should be.
>
> The current driver model doesn't allow me to know what the period size is, so I
> use a rough approximation to keep it near 10 ms if the primary rate is 44100 or
> 48000 which it is by default. The real problem is that alsa dmix sucks, so I
> have to work around its limitations. I really cannot when the expected latency
> is <100ms, so Im stuck with an imperfect solution that works for most people.

I don't understand why "The current driver model doesn't allow me to know what
the period size" ?

The current implementation is setting buffer time and period time but
dsound_test always fail since the driver allocate different buffer size when
sampling rate is different

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #28 from Austin English  2011-10-06 20:59:52 CDT ---
There's been a ton of work on audio recently, please give this a try in 1.3.29
or git (or wait until Monday for 1.3.30).

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #29 from Raymond  2011-10-07 17:46:56 CDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> There's been a ton of work on audio recently, please give this a try in 1.3.29
> or git (or wait until Monday for 1.3.30).

In 1.3.24 , snd-hda-intel can use 42ms buffer in famitracker without underrun
in performace stat of famitracker, but in 1.3.29 it seem need to use a larger
buffer

Do the rewrite of "dsound" using mmdevapi complete or not ?

since all dound tests fail with

Test failed: Primary and secondary buffers have different vtbls

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Julian Rüger  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Jarkko K  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #30 from Jarkko K  ---
PING

" Raymond 2011-10-07 17:46:56 CDT",

It's year 2014 now.

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

--- Comment #31 from Austin English  ---
This is your friendly reminder that there has been no bug activity for 1 year.
Is this still an issue in current (1.7.44 or newer) wine?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

Andrew Eikum  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

tokktokk  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

joaopa  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #32 from joaopa  ---
No news since 9 years. Audio improved a lot since this time.
Can an administrator close the bug as ABANDONED?

[Bug 9358] Low latency interactive buffers are not mixed properly in directsound

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9358

mirh  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #33 from mirh  ---
Extra bump I guess.