On 4/7/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Stefaniuc</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:mstefani@redhat.com">mstefani@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Tom Spear wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; That is true, but we also need to make sure that since we are going for<br>&gt; conformity (including conforming to MS's bugs) we don't fix a bug in our<br>&gt; code that is reported by Coverity, but that is also a bug in MS code..
<br>&gt; So if a game has to work around a bug in MS code, then our code should<br>&gt; still have that bug (so the game will work correctly), even if Coverity<br>&gt; picks it up....<br>Such MS compatibility bugs should be better documented in the code and
<br>checked by a Wine test else the danger that it will be removed is too big.</blockquote><div><br>I couldn't agree more.&nbsp; Matter of fact I recall that this is the reason that the KLEZ virus from a few years ago was able to infect a linux system running outlook express on wine, as well as why certain games crash (they work around a bug that doesn't exist in our code), so at the time, AJ said that if windows has a bug, so should wine.&nbsp; I was puzzled by it at the time, but since then I figured it out (previous note in () ). :-)
<br><br>Tom<br><br>P.S. AJ, how should we go about determining what bugs that Coverity picks up are bugs that exist in windows, so that they can be marked in the actual code (in order to prevent regressions)?<br></div><br>
</div>