On Thursday 24 February 2005 20:39, Paul Vriens wrote:
Could you send the patch to wine-patches :-).
Damn, another typo on my part (I meant it to go there in the first place)
On Friday 25 February 2005 03:26, Mike McCormack wrote:
Thanks for finding this problem. I think the root cause of the problem is that three structures that need to be the same require 3 seperate tweaks.
Can you confirm that this patch also fixes the problem for you?
I probably could, but given the nature of your patch there's a much more efficient test that should give much greater confidence in it - compiling the affected source files without debugging information using your patch and mine should give identical object files (except for time stamps in the object file headers).
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:25, Troy Rollo wrote:
On Friday 25 February 2005 03:26, Mike McCormack wrote:
Thanks for finding this problem. I think the root cause of the problem is that three structures that need to be the same require 3 seperate tweaks.
Can you confirm that this patch also fixes the problem for you?
I probably could, but given the nature of your patch there's a much more efficient test that should give much greater confidence in it - compiling the affected source files without debugging information using your patch and mine should give identical object files (except for time stamps in the object file headers).
I have done this, and except for 8 bytes that turned out to be line numbers of assert statements, the two patches compile to identical object code.
-
Troy Rollo