April 2002 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Another warning fix for Mingw32
by Steven Edwards 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

Same as last, if someone wants to help write a conf check by all means. Changelog: If the platform isnt MingW32 then define MAX_PATH cvs diff -u windef.h Index: windef.h =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/include/windef.h,v retrieving revision 1.62 diff -u -r1.62 windef.h --- windef.h 10 Mar 2002 00:02:34 -0000 1.62 +++ windef.h 25 Apr 2002 02:00:24 -0000 @@ -157,8 +157,9 @@ #define _MAX_EXT _MAX_FNAME #define _MAX_PATH 260 #endif +#if ! defined (_MINGW_) #define MAX_PATH _MAX_PATH - +#endif #define HFILE_ERROR ((HFILE)-1)

1 0

Another Minor Mingw32 Patch
by Steven Edwards 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

This one could have a configure check but I havent had the time to learn How to properly write one and mingw is the only platform I know of that doesn't have ftruncate support. If anyone has the time and wants to help I have about 4 or 5 things I need ./conf checks written for. Changlog: Added ftruncate support for makedep on MingW32 cvs diff -u makedep.c Index: makedep.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/tools/makedep.c,v retrieving revision 1.10 diff -u -r1.10 makedep.c --- makedep.c 10 Mar 2002 00:24:22 -0000 1.10 +++ makedep.c 25 Apr 2002 01:42:50 -0000 @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ #include <string.h> #include <unistd.h> +#ifdef _MINGW_ /* Taken from GLib */ +#define ftruncate(fd, size) +#endif + /* Max first-level includes per file */ #define MAX_INCLUDES 200

1 0

RE: minor regression testing patch
by Geoffrey Hausheer 25 Apr '02

25 Apr '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com {WineHQ-devel} > Version checks are a bad idea because this is not how Wine is > implemented. For instance GetLongPathName under Wine doesn't try to > fail if you are running with -winver win95, it just works. Adding > version checks in the tests just means that some functions won't get > tested if you run with the wrong version. > > The right way is to always call the function no matter the version, > and check that the call either succeeds as expected, or fails in the > way that it's supposed to fail on a platform that doesn't support it. The problem I forsee with this is that it makes writing tests a bit tricky for functions that behave differently on different platforms (i.e. defining the failure conditions correctly). Otherwise, it is a good thing to strive for. I'll try to modify the tests I've written to behave in this manner, and see how much work it is. Unfortunately, it is somewhat difficult, since I don't (in general) have access to the platforms which don't support the functions. So I can write tests that pass on Win2k, Win98, and wine, but as soon as someone runs it on win95 or nt4.0, it will likely fail (since I have no idea what the failure mechanism will be on these platforms, and thus can't gaurd against it) until someone can provide enough feedback to allow the test to be fixed. My assumption has always been: Make the function work correctly on Windows, and then add todo's to support wine. Thus I've put the effort in upfront to catch errors when the application runs on an MS OS. It sounds to me that you are proposing a more wine-centric testing base (make the tests work in Wine, and fix problems encountered in Windows as they pop up...or be a lot more knowledgeable than me at how Windows is supposed to behave). So far I have written all my tests based purely on the MSDN spec, and then tweaked them when an OS behaves differently than documented. If I don't use OS-specific checks, I just feel like I'm leaving a known whole in my test if I don't account for the the cases which are documented not to work (and which I don't know how they will behave). For instance the thread.c test that I wrote makes (some) checks for access control, which only work on win2k+. The way I wrote the test, it just worked in win98 when I finally got around to testing it. Had I just executed the checks, I would have had no idea how Win98 would behave (hopefully with a nice SetError, but god only knows), and the test would certainly have failed on win98 until I was able to try it and figure out how it dealt with this unsupported functionality. Lastly, what is the recomendation for dealing with cases like this: lstrcpyA(tmpstr,"aaaaaaaa"); len1=GetTempPathA(len,tmpstr); /*this should fail because len is too small */ ok(len1==len+1, "GetTempPathA should return string length %d instead of %d",len+1,len1); if(WIN2K_PLUS(version)) { /* in Win2k, the path won't be modified, but in win98, wine it is */ todo_wine { ok(lstrcmpiA(tmpstr,"aaaaaaaa")==0, "GetTempPathA should not have modified the buffer"); } } One answer is not to test this, since it is not documented what the result will be, but the OSes certainly behave differently, and it is possible that some program takes advantage of this. I'm sure there are other similar cases, and I'd like to know (in general) what the right solution will be. I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill, and I'll just try modifying my tests to work the way Alexandre proposes. I'm just afraid this is setting additonal obstacles for (non Wine) developers to write regression tests. Thanks, .Geoff

3 2

Re: C/L utility to translate unix and dos paths
by Michael Wetherell 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

On Wednesday 24 Apr 2002 7:51 pm, you wrote: > --- Michael Wetherell <mike.wetherell(a)ntlworld.com> > > wrote: > > Yes I know cygpath, winepath is intended to be a > > kind of Wine version of the > > same thing. > > > > The programs aren't interchangeable though, cygpath > > knows about Cygwin's > > mount points while winepath knows about Wine's DOS > > drives. > > Agree. Thought you may not know about cygpath and this > information will be interesting for you. > > Andiry > Yes thanks, it was interesting, many options. Mike

1 0

err:ntdll:RtlpWaitForCriticalSection
by Insyde 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Hi, Starting a program with: wine --winver win2k --debugmsg -relay,+x11drv,+snoop+dll iyp022.exe (the same error occurs with --winver win98/win95) gives me the folowing error: x11drv: Warning: $DISPLAY variable ignored, using ':0.0' specified in config file fixme:dialog:MSGBOX_OnInit task modal msgbox ! Not modal yet. err:ntdll:RtlpWaitForCriticalSection section 0x400f164c "module.c: loader_section" wait timed out, retrying (60 sec) fs=021f wine: Unhandled exception, starting debugger... x11drv: Warning: $DISPLAY variable ignored, using ':0.0' specified in config file err:ntdll:RtlpWaitForCriticalSection section 0x400f164c "module.c: loader_section" wait timed out, retrying (60 sec) fs=021f err:win:WIN_FindWndPtr window 30021 belongs to other process err:win:WIN_FindWndPtr window 30021 belongs to other process In the debbuger windows I have some debug msgs that the debbuger is trying to load and at the end it shows this message: Unhandled exception: wait failed on critical section 0x400f164c (loader_section in libntdll.dll.so) First chance exception: wait failed on critical section 0x400f164c (loader_section in libntdll.dll.so) and this message keeps repeating. How can I solve this? Already tryed with native ntdll.dll and it doesn't work. The program runs OK under Windows. Another problem I'm having is that if I don't specify --winver it doesn't work at all. Is it right? Thanks, Ricardo.

1 0

minor regression testing patch
by Paul Millar 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Hi, Found attached bug. Curiously, the test doesn't fail even if wine is pretending to be Windows 95 :) ChangeLog: Fixed typo "Major" -> "Minor" BTW, After the patch, the test for WIN98 or later is: #define WIN98_PLUS(version) (version.dwMajorVersion==4 && \ version.dwMinorVersion>0) but, MS's documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/sysinfo_49iw.asp suggests something more like: #define WIN98_PLUS(version) \ ( (version.dwPlatformId == VER_PLATFORM_WIN32_WINDOWS) && \ ( (version.dwMajorVersion > 4) || \ (version.dwMajorVersion==4 && version.dwMinorVersion>0))) Is this more correct? ---- Paul Millar

3 5

RE: minor regression testing patch
by Geoffrey Hausheer 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Millar paulm(a)astro.gla.ac.uk {WineHQ-devel} > ... > > Perhaps it would be best to make a test.h somewhere > > and put all of these kind of definitions someplace so we > don't need to > > redefine them for each test. > > Hmmm, was there an email about that a while ago? I thought Alexandre > wasn't happy with the idea, but I can't remember why... > I looked through the archives again, and couldn't find this topic having been discussed before. In any case, there is already wine/test.h, so I think adding some defines in there should be ok (I don't have a copy in front of me, so maybe it's not exactly the right place). If I don't see any further activity on this thread, I'll just stick the required defines in there next time I submit a test, and see if anyone complains. .Geoff

1 0

Re: [PATCH] ./tools/wineinstall *correct (.diff) format*
by Alexandre Julliard 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Speeddymon <speeddymon(a)yahoo.com> writes: > ModifiedFiles: tools/wineinstall > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/wine/tools/wineinstall,v > retrieving revision 1.26 > diff -u -r1.26 wineinstall > --- wineinstall 1 Apr 2002 20:56:51 -0000 1.26 > +++ wineinstall 17 Apr 2002 23:06:39 -0000 > @@ -291,6 +310,14 @@ > sucommand="echo $libdir>>/etc/ld.so.conf;ldconfig;$sucommand" > } > fi > + if [ -f /etc/ld.so.conf ] && ! grep -qs "$libdir/wine" /etc.ld.so.conf > + then { > + echo > + echo "$libdir/wine doesn't exist in your /etc/ld.so.conf, it will be" > + echo " added when we perform the install..." > + sucommand="echo $libdir/wine>>/etc/ld.so.conf;$sucommand" > + } > + fi $libdir/wine must not be added to ld.so.conf. Users have to set the WINEDLLPATH variable if Wine is not installed in the directory that was specified with --prefix (which shouldn't happen with wineinstall). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

4 5

comm.c: TransmitCommChar
by Marcelo Welter 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Greatings I have some application qhen use the comm.c:TransmitCommChar function, but this function are not implemented. anybody have one ideia to me go around this problem...? thaks and sorry per my litle english Marcelo Welter

4 6

Porting WineLib on PPC, using Bochs for binaries
by KandY 24 Apr '02

24 Apr '02

Hi everybody, I'm currently very interested by porting some of the Wine tech.on PPC. I've been looking for people interested in this kind of painful duty but I didn't see anybody carrying this type of idea anywhere on the Web. I've already mailed some people on that subject and someone told me some people were trying to port WineLib on Sparc (Ulrich Weigand for instance...). Does anybody of you have more information on that ? Did somebody did that somewhere on the globe? Besides that, to achieve my binary compatibility, I was looking at the Bochs emulation. Of course, I'm currently affected by some messages on the web saying the performances are not that great. I have nothing against emulation of machines but I only want to know of it is possible to port the Bochs on my Linux PPC and what performances can I expect (aren't there any benches to help me make my decision ?). Someone said that with a PIII 933, one can reach 3.5MIPS. Who can tell me success stories on that before I start working ? Yann K.

3 2