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

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > > redundant information if we can. > > If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl > script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the > *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. Well the *.api files (or at least the manual maintainance of them) will be eliminated some day. I will just have to implement parsing of the "typedefs" in the headers. However, note that I'm not suggesting that we change to automatic generation of spec files right now, but at some point in the future. What tool we should for it is a later problem. With the exception of which types maps to which "kinds" (long ptr str wstr) the tool will not nessarily be very complex and I'm not sure what the parsing of typedefs to find out will be very complex either. But I wont know until I try. What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed information be stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the question is how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? While I'm not entirely happy with your: /* ##spec## foo "@ forward bar(ptr str) BAZ.bar" */ solution it is the better that any ideas I have. Simplicity has its charm. :-) Then we could just, taking USER as example add /* ##spec## user "name user" */ /* ##spec## user "type win16" */ /* ##spec## user "heap 65520" */ /* ##spec## user "file user.exe" */ /* ##spec## user "owner user32" */ /* ##spec## user "rsrc resources/version16.res" */ /* ##spec## user "2 stub OldExitWindows" */ /* ##spec## user "3 stub EnableOEMLayer" */ /* ##spec## user "4 stub DisableOEMLayer" */ /* ... */ in a appropriate place in say dlls/user/user_main.c. The order that winapi_extract finds the directive is not important the .spec file format happends to make it possible to always get everything in the right order anyway. However this solves the header, the debug_channels, forwards and stubs problem and could be used to solve the remaining problems with "Exported external functions" but I would rather have it solved with my patch with that name, that you didn't apply when applying the other patches. So will accept such a solution? While we probably should not actually change the .c files to look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all the DLL:s functions are "implemented". > And it seems to me you are > finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) Well, considering that our developers have neglected the comments for many year and only changing the spec files that is not very suprising. That is the problem with having redundant information, most developers only change where it really count either out of ignorance or lack of time. > > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > > If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing > function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by > the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe > to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). Well, you also have implementing new functions. You have FooA and want to implement FooW for example. It is much easier and much more natural to be able to just cut and paste without having to change the spec files. I have seen many such errors detected by winapi_check over the years.

1 0

Handling X errors using exception handlers
by Lionel Ulmer 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hi all, When discussing with Ove yesterday on #WineHQ about the handling of X errors, he told me about an idea of his : using exceptions to handle X errors. This way, when we have to explicitely handle X errors (as we will need to do for XVidmode and XDGA2 due to some (stupidly done IMHO :-) ) security fixes in XFree 4.x), we could do that using exceptions. Before doing this 'properly' (ie change the X11 drv, update the XShm error mechanism, the debugger, ...), here is what I did for now : 1) I created a new Wine-private exception type in include/wine/exception.h : /* unhandled X error */ #define EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV 0x80000104 2) I created a new X error handler that is installed at X11DRV initialization : static int X11DRV_XErrorHandler(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *event) { EXCEPTION_RECORD rec; rec.ExceptionCode = EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV; rec.ExceptionFlags = 0; rec.ExceptionRecord = NULL; rec.ExceptionAddress = XGLErrorHandler; rec.NumberParameters = 4; rec.ExceptionInformation[0] = (DWORD)event->serial; rec.ExceptionInformation[1] = (DWORD)event->error_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[2] = (DWORD)event->request_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[3] = (DWORD)event->minor_code; RtlRaiseException(&rec); return 0; } 3) I changed the XVidMode detection code thus : /* handle only X errors */ static WINE_EXCEPTION_FILTER(xerror_handler) { switch (GetExceptionCode()) { case EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV: return EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER; default: return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH; } } (...) void X11DRV_XF86VM_Init(void) { (...) wine_tsx11_lock(); (...) __TRY { if (!XF86VidModeQueryVersion(gdi_display, &xf86vm_major, &xf86vm_minor)) { xf86vm_major = 0; } XSync(gdi_display, False); } __EXCEPT(xerror_handler) { xf86vm_major = 0; } __ENDTRY wine_tsx11_unlock(); if (xf86vm_major == 0) { TRACE("No XVidmode\n"); return; } (...) } So what do you all think of this ? Is this something that I should add to the whole Wine tree ? The only problem with that is that it would make debugging X errors a bit more difficult as we won't have the standard X error message in debug reports from users... Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/

1 0

cvs changes
by mdew 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

i havent had any problems until i updated to the latest CVS.., what exactly changed to cause this to pop up? (Using mIRC etc) fixme:console:SetConsoleCtrlHandler (0x3000f330,0) - no error checking or testing yet

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by Mike McCormack 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hey Lawson, thanks for sending Juno... i got it, but i haven't tried it yet... i thought i'd just keep patching a bit at a time until somebody complained :-) If anybody knows of any free win3.1 terminal programs, please tell me. Anyhow, this is my TODO list: * use SetCommState in SetCommState16 * save and restore m_stat using Get/SetCommState in OpenComm16 * use ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx instead of service thread * finally, move 16bit comm implementation to USER Mike > Good day! > > If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed > patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. > > Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered > filling in the junk to make a new account? > > Regards, > > Lawson ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack(a)start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

1 0

Re: PATCH: createwindow small unicode prob
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> writes: > Changelog: > WM_NCCREATE has a A/W struct, so check unicode flag for which call > to use. In what case did this cause a problem? The desktop window proc is Unicode-only, and the structure doesn't contain strings anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > redundant information if we can. If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. And it seems to me you are finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > > One of the major reasons of having automatically > > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > > store redundant information. The needed information > > is already in the C function declaration and storing > > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > > complicatated but it really isn't that important > > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. > > IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the > source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a > Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add > comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see > much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the > information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for > that matter). Well, the ordinal of each function and for that that matter which functions that should be exported must be specified somewhere. Currently winapi_extract takes this information from the comment lines looking like this in the nearest preceding comment: * Foo (BAR.@) All non-static functions with such preceding comment line(s) is considered exported using the name specified in the comment as the external name. Of course, I can take this information from anywhere, but for obvious reason I can't guess it. If the unmodified source contains Microsoft Visual C++ __declspec(dllexport) directives or the project has a Microsoft Export file (a .def file) I can generate a spec file. This is not supported yet, but is no particular problem supporting in itself. A little worse problem is that I currently doesn't extract the function "kinds" (long ptr double str wstr) from the source but use the tools/winapi_check/win{16,32}/*.api files to determine the "kinds". This is not a teoretical problem, however it might take some time to fix all the same. But after that winapi_extract will be able to take unmodified source if __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file exists. However I think we concentrate primarily on the Wine source. I think as far the it is concerned it will suffice to use comment lines like * Foo (BAR.@) to extract the normal entries for the spec files. The stubs and forwards need to have special handling but then so must it in the case of __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file as well. There is no problem for winapi_extract to support all the above either (except implementation time of course). > Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now > (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does > is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think > there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and > they are not going to change much. Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having redundant information if we can. In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed > debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should > go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping > program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up > the spec files. That is another thing that I have planned to do with winapi_extract. I don't have any good idea how this should look like yet. You (or somebody else) are welcome to write a specification on exactly what you want so I can fix the how when I have time.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > One of the major reasons of having automatically > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > store redundant information. The needed information > is already in the C function declaration and storing > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > complicatated but it really isn't that important > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for that matter). Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and they are not going to change much. Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up the spec files. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Good day! If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered filling in the junk to make a new account? Regards, Lawson ---cut--- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

hello all
by Brandon Kilgore 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Hi everyone, Just letting you all know that there's a new listener out here, eager to pick up on what you're discussing. I'm only 17, so I'll be pretty much staying out of the way, but I love programming so hopefully you won't mind if I stick my hand up to ask a question or respond to someone every once in a while. Just so you can know a bit about me...I used to be a purely QBasic programmer in my "early" days, but a few years ago I began broadening my horizons, mostly with HTML and Visual Basic. For a long time I had wanted to learn C but never really got around to it, but a little over a year ago I finally sat down and started learning, and now its one of the only languages I ever use. Some other languages I currently program in (or would come back to me if need be :-) : C/C++/Visual C++ (Q)Basic/Visual Basic HTML Perl BF (there's an interesting language...) Java/JavaScript WISE InstallMaster scripting ;-) Anyways, I'll let you all get back to the important development discussions. I'll be talking to you... - Brandon

2 2