wine at jdrake.com
Sun Nov 16 00:34:55 CST 2008
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Juan Lang wrote:
> > Any feedback on the spec file or the debug trace?
> I'm afraid I don't know what substantive difference there is between
> looking at one small portion of the disassembly (to verify a function
> is being called) and learning something more substantial. There are
> certain kinds of reverse engineering that are allowed, but looking at
> disassembly is not.
And now that I know that, I certainly won't be doing it again.
> I don't think this is going to go in, sorry.
Well, I still have an application that won't run under wine because this
function is not implemented. So assuming *this* patch doesn't get in,
what can I do to help get *a* patch in that implements this function? I
can blow away my sandbox and start from scratch, but I suspect you would
find that insufficient. Maybe I should find a hypnotist to make me forget
what I saw in the debugger :)
Would it be acceptable for me to write up a description of what the
function needs to do, so that someone else can do a clean-room
implementation? It would probably take a reasonably experienced C/COM
developer all of about 5 minutes, since this function is really just a
wrapper of an already-implemented function. Is there anyone out there who
would volunteer to do it if I were to write a description of the function?
If I provided a patch to dlls/oleaut32/tests/olepicture.c adding tests
that verify the behaviors of the functions, would that be accepted? Or is
writing tests for functions you've seen the disassembly for also
I realize now that I've made a mistake by looking at the function in the
debugger, but hopefully there is still a way I can help get this function
More information about the wine-devel