Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry at codeweavers.com
Sun Dec 31 05:21:35 CST 2006

"Andreas Mohr" <andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> wrote:

> The STATUS_ILLEGAL_FUNCTION name was rather misleading to me since it doesn't
> indicate at all that it's supposed to be pipe-related
> (however it's within the numeric range of many other pipe status codes!).
> So, given that this is mainly a pipe status code after all I'd say that's
> the best we can achieve right now.

I haven't found anything more close is the PSDK.

> Of course, what really matters is what the receiving Win32 side *usually*
> expects after we encountered ESPIPE, and this might turn out to differ
> from your conversion ;).
> (is there any indication that RedAlert checks for a specific status code??)

Looks like that my change didn't actually affected RedAlert at all, at least
it was still functioning in my limited test session.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list