Hi,
as suggested I send this patch for a discussion. This is a workaround for this bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11584 .
I don't know if this patch is the right way to fix the problem.
Could someone with more knowledge have a look at this?
Cheers Rico
Hi,
as suggested I send this patch for a discussion. This is a workaround for this bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11584 .
I don't know if this patch is the right way to fix the problem.
Could someone with more knowledge have a look at this?
Cheers Rico
It is not a workaround but a patch which restores the original behavior of the LoadLocation function. During the merge of the two codepaths I missed this part.
Roderick
Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 20:12:24 schrieb Roderick Colenbrander:
It is not a workaround but a patch which restores the original behavior of the LoadLocation function. During the merge of the two codepaths I missed this part.
What happens if e.g. the current render target is an offscreen target and the application tries to read back the front or back buffer? In this case you'll read the offscreen target back.
So I am not sure this patch is correct
Stefan Dösinger wrote:
What happens if e.g. the current render target is an offscreen target and the application tries to read back the front or back buffer? In this case you'll read the offscreen target back.
So I am not sure this patch is correct
I have no idea I just tried a bit around and got cod4 (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11584) working again with this patch.
I didn't step deep into this problem. So if I could help with some logs or other things, please let me know. Properly, the real bug is somewhere else?
Cheers Rico
Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 22:45:23 schrieb Rico Schüller:
I didn't step deep into this problem. So if I could help with some logs or other things, please let me know. Properly, the real bug is somewhere else?
Did you intend to attach a file to the mail, or did you refer to the last attachment to the bug?
I refer to the last attachment to the bug (and the patch which was sent in the initial mail http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-February/062835.html - it's the same).
I just want to say if my patch is wrong and the other way is wrong (see bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11584 ) then the real issue must be somewhere else! To find that my knowledge isn't good enough yet. So I just want to have some help/hints to find the real source of the bug ;-)
Cheers Rico
Stefan Dösinger wrote:
Am Freitag, 22. Februar 2008 22:45:23 schrieb Rico Schüller:
I didn't step deep into this problem. So if I could help with some logs or other things, please let me know. Properly, the real bug is somewhere else?
Did you intend to attach a file to the mail, or did you refer to the last attachment to the bug?