On 09/03/13 13:51, Qian Hong wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>> Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm
>> not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions
>> are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> Not really, good catch. We should make them consistent. Honestly, I'm
> not sure which one is better. Both have their problems. Some functions
> are forwarded, others are not, so having one debug channel would be
> guarantee that we don't miss s
On 09/03/13 13:28, Qian Hong wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong wrote:
>> Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
>> we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
>> is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Qian Hong wrote:
> Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
> we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
> is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
Oh, I just found dlls/atl100/atl_ax.c
> +WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(atl);
Hi Jacek, we already have a debug channel atl100 for atl100.dll, but
we currently use atl for both atl.dll and atl80.dll, do you think it
is better to use atl for all, or one debug channel per each dll?
