On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, matyapiro31 <matyapiro31(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The patch could have a better subject =)
> + unix_len=sizeof(unix_vars)/sizeof(unix_vars[0];
Missing the closing ) ? Will this compile?
> - for ( i = 0; i < sizeof (special) / sizeof (WCHAR); i++ )
> + for ( i = 0; i < 17; i++ )
I guess the compiler does this for you. And for the other cases too.
Also you should send only one patch per email.
Regards,
Bruno
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:29:43 +0900, ����� wrote:
> diff --git a/loader/Makefile.in b/loader/Makefile.in
> index a7ab893..bc11378 100644
> --- a/loader/Makefile.in
> +++ b/loader/Makefile.in
> @@ -20,14 +20,16 @@ MANPAGE = wine.man
> EXTRA_MANPAGES = \
> wine.de.man \
> wine.fr.man \
> - wine.pl.man
> + wine.pl.man \
> + wine.ja.man
The line was indented spaces, use tabs instead here, please.
The list should be in alphabetical order, i.e. de, fr, ja, pl.
> INSTALLDIRS = \
> $(DESTDIR)$(bindir) \
> $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/man$(prog_manext) \
> $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/de.UTF-8/man$(prog_manext) \
> $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/fr.UTF-8/man$(prog_manext) \
> - $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/pl.UTF-8/man$(prog_manext)
> + $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/pl.UTF-8/man$(prog_manext) \
> + $(DESTDIR)$(mandir)/ja/man$(prog_manext)
Use tabs and insert the line between fr and pl, please.
Why don't you use ja.UTF-8?
> diff --git a/loader/wine.ja.man.in b/loader/wine.ja.man.in
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e2e1cba
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/loader/wine.ja.man.in
The document still looks like wine 1.4 age text. Some sentences deleted
before 1.6 release, e.g. git url, still remain. Updated texts, e.g.
DESCRIPTION section, aren't reflected in the translated one. Please
refer the diff page [1] to figure out what was changed between wine-1.4
and wine-1.6.
[1] http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/blobdiff/wine-1.4..wine-1.6:/loader/w…
I noticed that you added Japanese specific section -- 文字化けについて
-- to the man page. I'm not sure about this because other translators
didn't do like this and it is difficult to keep up-to-date language
specific information.
Regards,
Akihiro Sagawa
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=1918
Your paranoid android.
=== w7pro64 (32 bit http) ===
http.c:4279: Test failed: HttpSendRequest failed: 12057
http.c:4284: Test failed: expected secure flag to be set
=== w7pro64 (64 bit http) ===
http.c:3445: Test failed: HttpQueryInfo failed 0
Hello Nikolay,
On 08/27/2013 12:16 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> +static OLEMISC get_olemisc_value(const WCHAR *str, int len)
> +{
> + int min, max;
> +
> + min = 0;
> + max = sizeof(olemisc_values)/sizeof(struct olemisc_entry) - 1;
> +
> + while (min <= max)
> + {
> + int n, c;
> +
> + n = (min+max)/2;
> +
> + c = strncmpW(olemisc_values[n].name, str, len);
why don't you just compare the length first? If the length matches you
can do a simple strcmpW between the strings to verify the match.
Something like the below code:
if (olemisc_values[n].len == len)
{
if (!strcmpW(olemisc_values[n].name, str)
return olemisc_values[n].value;
else
...
}
else if (olemisc_values[n].len > len)
max = n-1;
else
min = n+1;
> + if (!c)
> + {
> + if (olemisc_values[n].len < len)
> + c = -1;
> + else if (olemisc_values[n].len > len)
> + c = 1;
> + }
> +
> + if (!c)
> + return olemisc_values[n].value;
> +
> + if (c > 0)
> + max = n-1;
> + else
> + min = n+1;
> + }
> +
> + WARN("unknown flag %s\n", debugstr_wn(str, len));
> + return 0;
> +}
bye
michael
Hi,
I'm maintaining Spore 1.0, and it works correctly in wine for over a year on Nvidia video card with closed-source nvidia driver - but I do noticed with Intel cards with open source drivers, the game is nearly not playable - missing texture and more problems.
Today comes in a new test result that mark the game as "Garbage", while the description is exactly what happened on my laptop with Intel chip. What should I do about this? To proceed with the test result and change the game to "Garbage" stage, or reject with "Nvidia cards works fine"? I don't think either is fine, so I come to the list for help.
Thanks!
Regards,
Felix Yan