February 2005 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [user32/tests/sysparams.c] Add an extra trace
by Paul Vriens 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 09:58, Paul Vriens wrote: > Hi, > > winrash just ran on my win98 box and the sysparams test didn't complain > about SPI_GETICONTITLEWRAP not being implemented. If I however run the > test manually (with an extra trace) win98 tells me it's not > implemented!! > > So to have some more input about this, I added an extra trace. It could > be that ERROR_INVALID_SPI_VALUE has something to do with this. > > Changelog > extra tracing for SPI_GETICONTITLEWRAP > > Cheers, > > Paul This needs more investigation. Some extra testing showed that LastError is not always set by the calls (all?). I added traces to all the calls and suddenly nothing was implemented anymore. Then I added a SetLastError(0) before every call and the output was totally different again. The only thing not implemented anymore on my win98 box was SystemParametersInfoW. So what's the best approach: - add a SetLastError(0) in every test-routine before we do something? - add a trace after each SystemParametersInfo call? - find out which call sets LastError and which calls don't? Cheers, Paul.

1 0

Re: Newest winrash problems?
by Chris Morgan 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

I'm not actually installing winsock2, just popping up a dialog during the installer mentioning that you need winsock2 if you are running on a win95 machine. What I *should* do is somehow get the nsis installer script to check for the winsock2 dlls and actually run the installer, but thats a bit more difficult than just displaying a dialog with text and a web link. Chris > > From: Paul Vriens <Paul.Vriens(a)xs4all.nl> > Date: 2005/02/03 Thu AM 03:19:52 EST > To: "wine-devel(a)winehq.org" <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> > Subject: Newest winrash problems? > > Hi, > > I had some problems with Winrash bailing out on 2 of my win98 systems. > Apparently this was because a new winrash was available and it tried to > install that? > After uninstalling winrash 0009 and installing 0010 it works again. One > of the main differences is that winrash 0010 has an extra winsock2 > install, could this be the cause? > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > >

2 1

Last change to wine/dlls/comctl32/header.c caused regression in Shareaza (downloadable source)
by Tony Lambregts 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

According to bug 2659 http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2659 This patch http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-cvs/2005/01/0232.html causes a regression in Shareaza. http://www.shareaza.com/?id=download I have tested this myself and it is definitely this patch. Backing out this change with current cvs allows Sharaza to work. The the source code for this program is available at http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=110672&package_id=119… -- Tony lambregts

1 0

Re: [variant] partial support for nulls + emptys converted to numbers.
by Marcus Meissner 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 02:28:03PM +0000, Oliver Stieber wrote: > Hi, > I've had this lurking around in my tree for a while, > the patch starts to support mixing nulls or emptys > with integers (basically null == 0 and empty == 0) The patch does not match your description. It looks like some huge D3D diff instead ... Ciao, Marcus

1 0

Wine pthread_detach problem
by Sergey Efimoff 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Hi All, While doing experiments with winegcc/wineg++ I have compiled my application which uses complex multi-threaded library. Wine made shell wrapper script for me and the application itself with the extension .exe.so. I tried to run this application: FIXME:pthread_detach FIXME:pthread_detach Bad system call (core dumped) or, as another option: FIXME:pthread_detach wine: Unhandled exception (thread 000a), starting debugger... How can I handle this failure? //Sergey.

1 0

Re: GDI: implement color management functions
by Alexandre Julliard 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Hans Leidekker <hans(a)it.vu.nl> writes: > This patch doesn't go as far as allocating and initializing a color > space on DC creation. It simply creates (a dummy) one when asked for, > to avoid any impact on performance. It also doesn't fully implement > color space handles, instead it simply casts a pointer to a handle > and back. This cannot possibly work, the pointer won't remain valid. If you don't want to implement proper handles then return something like 0xdeadbeef and print a FIXME so that it's at least obvious that something's not working right. Your approach will only lead to mysterious crashes. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [shlwapi/tests/shreg.c #6] More verbosity
by Alexandre Julliard 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Paul Vriens <Paul.Vriens(a)xs4all.nl> writes: > This patch add more verbosity. I also changed some of the ok(0,) into a > trace. I don't think we want to do that, this is just hiding problems. If a test cannot run this should be flagged as an error. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

x11drv regression?
by Oliver Stieber 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Hi, I've just synced with CVS and the following code and I can no longer get an x11 window ID using (Window)GetPropA(HWND,"__wine_x11_client_window" ); I've had a look at X11DRV and there have been a few changes reciently, should I be using something else? ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

7 9

Re: [user32/tests/sysparams.c] Check for availability of SPI_GETICONTITLEWRAP
by jchevrier＠nexicom.net 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

> Hi, > > SPI_{GET,SET}ICONTITLEWRAP is not implemented on a standard Win98 SE. > > Changelog > Check for availability of SPI_GETICONTITLEWRAP > > Cheers, > > Paul. Hi Paul, I agree we definately should not be leaving keys/values in user's registries that weren't there originally after the test has been run. Ideally all should be returned to exactly the way it was before the test was run. Unfortunately this patch won't correct the issue. This patch implies that SPI_{GET,SET}ICONTITLEWRAP is not a supported call on Win98 which it is. As a result it will always pass and the registry will still get a new value added. Try the following patch. It was just put together quickly and only covers this one test, but testing here shows it does stop a new value from being added if it did not exist to begin with. I would like to create something that covers the entire sysparams suite of tests to stop this across the board. Thanks for the heads up on this! Justin

3 6

Newest winrash problems?
by Paul Vriens 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

Hi, I had some problems with Winrash bailing out on 2 of my win98 systems. Apparently this was because a new winrash was available and it tried to install that? After uninstalling winrash 0009 and installing 0010 it works again. One of the main differences is that winrash 0010 has an extra winsock2 install, could this be the cause? Cheers, Paul.

1 0