February 2001 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

SHLocalAlloc
by J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

I've been trying to get the Windows ME version of internet explorer/explorer to load successfully under Wine.. However, it runs into an unimplemented SHLocalAlloc function in shell32. This appears to be an undocumented function, or I'm looking in the wrong place... has anyone got a patch or API specs on it? Regards, Ender _________________________ ______________________________ | James 'Ender' Brown | "Where are we going, and why | | http://www.enderboi.com | am I in this handbasket?!?" | +-------------------------+------------------------------+

2 1

huge library renaming ?
by Andreas Mohr 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Hello all, one thing that occurred to me: Shouldn't we rename *all* Wine libraries to libwineXXX ? AFAIR there have been several naming conflicts with other projects (libole, ...), and people who need to remove a previous Wine install from their system manually have a rather hard time... Any reason for not doing this ? I can't think of any... If this is a good thing, then we should do this NOW, not when it's too late. The current drawbacks are just too much IMHO. Andreas Mohr

6 7

Re: ./dlls/libntdll.so: undefined reference to `PTHREAD_init_done'
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer(a)dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes: > I'm leaving for holidays very soon and have to proof-read some 60 exams > before that, so I won't be able to track this down, but perhaps one of > could fix the build failure seen on FreeBSD 4.2? > > Perhaps just some incomplete #ifdef ... #endif sequence? Yep, here's a fix: Index: scheduler/pthread.c =================================================================== RCS file: /opt/cvs-commit/wine/scheduler/pthread.c,v retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.11 pthread.c --- scheduler/pthread.c 2001/02/23 01:37:05 1.11 +++ scheduler/pthread.c 2001/02/23 22:27:07 @@ -18,6 +18,13 @@ #include "winbase.h" #include "thread.h" +static int init_done; + +void PTHREAD_init_done(void) +{ + init_done = 1; +} + /* Currently this probably works only for glibc2, * which checks for the presence of double-underscore-prepended * pthread primitives, and use them if available. @@ -86,13 +93,6 @@ #define MAX_KEYS 16 /* libc6 doesn't use that many, but... */ #define P_OUTPUT(stuff) write(2,stuff,strlen(stuff)) - -static int init_done; - -void PTHREAD_init_done(void) -{ - init_done = 1; -} void __pthread_initialize(void) { -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

./dlls/libntdll.so: undefined reference to `PTHREAD_init_done'
by Gerald Pfeifer 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

I'm leaving for holidays very soon and have to proof-read some 60 exams before that, so I won't be able to track this down, but perhaps one of could fix the build failure seen on FreeBSD 4.2? Perhaps just some incomplete #ifdef ... #endif sequence? : rm -f libwine_unicode.so && ln -s unicode/libwine_unicode.so libwine_unicode.so rm -f libwine_uuid.a && ln -s ole/libwine_uuid.a libwine_uuid.a gmake[1]: Entering directory `/.amd_mnt/vexpert/files8/test/wine/miscemu' LD_LIBRARY_PATH="../unicode:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" ../tools/winebuild/winebuild -fPIC -L../dlls -o wine.spec.c -spec wine.spec /usr/bin/gcc -c -I. -I. -I../include -I../include -g -O2 -Wall -fno-strength-reduce -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/X11R6/include -o wine.spec.o wine.spec.c /usr/bin/gcc -c -I. -I. -I../include -I../include -g -O2 -Wall -fno-strength-reduce -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/X11R6/include -o main.o main.c ld -r wine.spec.o main.o -o miscemu.o gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/.amd_mnt/vexpert/files8/test/wine/miscemu' /usr/bin/gcc -o wine miscemu/miscemu.o -L./dlls -lntdll -L./library -lwine -L./unicode -lwine_unicode -lncurses -lxpg4 -lm -lutil ./dlls/libntdll.so: undefined reference to `PTHREAD_init_done' gmake: *** [wine] Error 1 Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer(a)dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

1 0

Re: Perl/Wine extension for perusal
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Eric Pouech <Eric.Pouech(a)wanadoo.fr> writes: > Do you really feel like a C compiler is less common than a perl binary > under Windows ? I seriously doubt it... Anybody can install a perl binary on their machine, while nearly all Windows compilers are commercial software... > well, the stubs between perl and windows will not be exactly the same > anyway, so you'll anyway introduce code differences between the two > (not to speak about the perl interpreters which might have small differences > too). You'll need some serious testing to make sure that both interpreters behave the same way of course; but you only have to do this once, you can then share test scripts freely. If you have to compile them you'll never know if your foo.exe and your foo.so were compiled from the same source, since you cannot diff them to check. > In some other cases, it may also be interesting > to simply run existing programs (if they exist). This shouldn't part > of the whole test system, but if program exists then use it (of course > command based programs are much easier than UI ones...) That's a completely different test environment. The perl stuff is meant for unit testing (a single API at a time), and especially for catching regressions. Running whole applications is of course necessary too, but it's not the same usage nor the same goal. I don't want 'make test' to launch winword so that I can test it too. > where I want to end up to is that we'd need several tests environments > (perl to be one, pure C could be another one... - it's anyway needed to > test the Winelib part, and the associated tools..., command line programs > from shell scripts could be a third). > the driving idea would be that all of those test tools spit the same > type of outputs (they all belong to the first pass), so we can share > the analysis tools I don't see any need for that. The tests and the results are very different, and I don't see what you'll be able to share. The result of the unit test would be something like 'HeapFree does not set the correct last error code when called with pointer xxx'; the result of running an application will be 'winword crashes when I click on save'. It's a completely different approach to testing, both are necessary but not within the same environment IMO. > there's just one point that worries me. Let me explain how I ended up with > XML. one thing I don't like is to have a "reference" file, but I don't > know what it refers to. I think the test process should output both the result > of the test (pure ASCII is fine) but also the environment of the test > (Windows - if so version, even DLLs used... -, vs wine - which version, which > DLLs are used, native vs builtin...) so that we could make usefull > comparisons But none of this information is relevant for unit testing. The only information that may be needed is the Windows version, and this only for the few APIs that actually behave differently between versions. And if you do your test scripts right you don't even need to know about it. For instance, instead of doing something like: kernel32->MapViewOfFile(bad params); print kernel32->GetLastError(); which would print different things on 95 and NT, you'd do: kernel32->MapViewOfFile(bad params); $err = kernel32->GetLastError(); if (kernel32->GetVersion() == win95) { print ($err == ERROR_INVALID_ADDRESS) ? "OK" : "failed: $err"; } else { print ($err == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER) ? "OK" : "failed: $err"; } This way the script always prints the same thing no matter the Windows version, and you can use a simple diff against a single reference file. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

IBM Websphere Studio
by David.Goodenough＠dga.co.uk 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Having got Java running properly under Wine 20010216, now I return to the application that caused me to start looking at Java, Websphere Studio. I managed to get it to install with a few non-fatal messages, and it starts. It is very slow, but my first interest is to get it to work. It uses ImmAssociateContext and ImmGetContext, but currently these are stubs, and so FixMe's happen. Is anyone working in this area, if so have they written non-stub versions of these functions, alternatively does anyone know where the HIMC should be stored, and how I get to it from a HWND and then I can code them up.

1 0

Re: Perl/Wine extension for perusal
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Eric Pouech <Eric.Pouech(a)wanadoo.fr> writes: > So, I had rather in mind to have a two passes approach > pass 1 : let the scripts run and output the results > pass 2 : analyze the results. This could be either comparing with a > manually edited reference case, or reference cases could be generated from > running the program under Win <put any version here>. Yes, that's the idea; the test script will output a bunch of results which can then be compared against a reference run generated under Windows. We probably also want a standard config file (or a few of them to handle version differences) to ensure the test environment is the same for everybody. > So, this imposes to have the test programs also (compile) and run under > windows... This could even allow (from source code for example) to have > 3 test caes : > 1/ compiled and running under windows > 2/ compiled under windows, but run with wine > 3/ compiled as a winelib app The idea of using an interpreter like Perl is precisely that you don't need to compile anything to run tests. I think this is important because not everybody has a Windows compiler. It also allows using the exact same test script under Windows and Wine, so that you don't have to worry whether your Windows binary exactly matches your Winelib binary. > in order to help the pass 2 (and even produce all possible reports), I > had in mind (but didn't give a good look at it) to let the test scripts > produce an XML output. This would allow the test harness to spit out any > information (like used DLLs native/builtin, version of those, version of > windows (emulated by wine or native...), plus the output by itself > analysis and report should be (partially) driven by some XSL/XSLT tools I don't think we need anything fancy like that. The output should be simple ASCII that can be automatically compared with diff, and the test is considered a failure if diff finds any difference against the reference output. Everything should be automated as much as possible. > for developpers, the make test should be made more fine grain (IMO). Like > (not necessarly thru make) test a DLL (if some modifications have been > made to it) or even an entry point... (or a set of entry points). Yes, there should be one set of test scenarios for each dll, and each scenario should test one entry point (or a few related ones); this way you can either run a single test, or do a make test in a dll directory to run the tests for this dll, or make test at the top-level which will simply iterate through all the dlls. The tests should ideally run fast enough that you can do a make test in the dll dir everytime you change something. > It's the way I started splitting the test cases (DLL / set of features...). > This has drawbacks. For example, it's rather hard to test, say, Unicode > support accross all DLLs But you should never need to do that. If you change something in a core Unicode function in kernel, this will be tested by the kernel test scenarios. If the test scenarios don't find a problem but tests for higher level dlls fail, then your kernel test scenarios are buggy since they didn't spot the change. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

3 2

Re: huge library renaming ?
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > one thing that occurred to me: > Shouldn't we rename *all* Wine libraries to libwineXXX ? This was discussed already. The dlls will ultimately reside in /usr/lib/wine so there won't be any conflict; the libraries that have to be in /usr/lib already use the libwine prefix (libwine_unicode, libwine_tsx11 etc.) -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: huge library renaming ?
by Patrik Stridvall 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > > AFAIR there have been several naming conflicts with other projects > > (libole, ...), and people who need to remove a previous Wine install > > from their system manually have a rather hard time... > > > > Any reason for not doing this ? > > I can't think of any... > > Any reason for doing this? > I can't think of any... > > The Debian packages work perfectly, without any potential for > conflict. > They install the dlls into /usr/lib/wine, do *not* put > /usr/lib/wine into > ld.so.conf, while Wine loads the dlls from /usr/lib/wine, not from > /usr/lib (and Wine's own configure adds rpath stuff last time > I looked) I think the discussion is more about what Winelib applications in general do (or should do) rather than what Wine (a very specific Winelib application) does. Sure Wine uses (or can be made to use rpath), but I'm not sure we want to require all Winelib applications to do the same. It would IMHO be much better if a simple Winelib applications just could add -lwin32_XXX and be done with it.

2 1

RE: huge library renaming ?
by Patrik Stridvall 23 Feb '01

23 Feb '01

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:31:50PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > one thing that occurred to me: > > Shouldn't we rename *all* Wine libraries to libwineXXX ? > > > > AFAIR there have been several naming conflicts with other projects > > (libole, ...), and people who need to remove a previous Wine install > > from their system manually have a rather hard time... > > > > Any reason for not doing this ? > > I can't think of any... > > > > If this is a good thing, then we should do this NOW, not > when it's too late. I agree, if we do we must do it before Wine 1.0. > > The current drawbacks are just too much IMHO. > > Why not put them in /usr/lib/wine/ as suggested by the FHS? I second that. However I would suggest that we also put symbolic link to the corresponding files in /usr/lib following the suggested naming scheme libwineXXX or something similar. Other suggestions. 1. libwine_XXX 2. libwin32_XXX Personal think I would prefer the libwin32_XXX variant because in theory use could have other implementations of the Windows API than Wine and that is of no pariticular concern of the programmer eventhough of course it is for the administrator of the system. If a programmer wanted to use say Win32 filehandling functions he could, in theory, just link with libwin32_kernel32 and be done with it. Something (in our case Wine) provides it, but he doesn't care what. This is currently not possible IIRC but it might be in the future. Additionally is makes it possible to support both Win32 and Win64 on 64bit systems like Itanium by having libwin64_XXX. This would make it easier to properly link to the files in Winelib application. This means you can do gcc -o foo foo.c -lwin32_ole instead of doing gcc -o foo foo.c -I/usr/lib/wine -lole that might cause problems if libole.so exist in another path. Also not that this also makes it harder to link to the DLL:s that are not supposed to be use with Winelib by misstake, like the Win16 DLL:s since we can choose to not provide symbolic links to them.

1 0