- Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Listview ctrl
by Dimitrie O. Paun 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Hi folks, While I looking for something _small_ to do, I discovered that listview.c had two of those HEAP_strdupXXX calls that Alexandre hates so much. I figured that's got to be a 2 minute job, but I was wrong -- it turns out that the listview control needed to get Unicode enabled. So, after much work and no testing, here is a first try at doing that. The good news is that it seems it compiles. The bad news is that I have no idea how to test it. So any suggestions on how to test the listview control, or any help with the testing is greatly appreciated, as well as any comments on the patch itself. Alexandre, why is it that you want so badly to get rid of the HEAP_strdup functions? I mean, in certain cases they are not needed, and they rather signal that the code needs fixing, but in other places they _are_ needed and they convey a heck of a lot better what we're trying to do then the strange WideCharXXX function calls. -- Dimi

3 10

Re: lpOverlapped = NULL
by Mike McCormack 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Hi Martin, Sure, feel free to change it. I used the lpOverlapped to identify the async operation, but any pointer will do. The only reason for not using async_private* was to have some way to verify that the pointer was valid... Mike Original message from: Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck(a)fujitsu-siemens.com> > > >Mike, > >I should have been aware of this before :-/ > >As mentioned in my other mail, >** Winsock allows NULL pointers for lpOverlapped. ** > >AFAICS, Mike, your server-side code uses the overlapped field >only for identifying a certain request. This will obviously >break if the overlapped field may be NULL. > >Question: Would it hurt to use the async_private pointer of a >request rather than the overlapped pointer to pass to the >server? If no, I guess that would be the way to go, because >the async_private structs are allocated by us and therefore necessarily >different and non-NULL. > >Wrt to the status and "bytes read", I already have a pretty elegant >solution which keeps the overlapped struct outside the generic code >(scheduler and server). > >Please comment, >Martin ------------------------------------------ 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

lpOverlapped = NULL
by Martin Wilck 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Mike, I should have been aware of this before :-/ As mentioned in my other mail, ** Winsock allows NULL pointers for lpOverlapped. ** AFAICS, Mike, your server-side code uses the overlapped field only for identifying a certain request. This will obviously break if the overlapped field may be NULL. Question: Would it hurt to use the async_private pointer of a request rather than the overlapped pointer to pass to the server? If no, I guess that would be the way to go, because the async_private structs are allocated by us and therefore necessarily different and non-NULL. Wrt to the status and "bytes read", I already have a pretty elegant solution which keeps the overlapped struct outside the generic code (scheduler and server). Please comment, Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck(a)Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

1 0

struct async_private needs generalization for Winsock
by Martin Wilck 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Hi Mike, all, as I pointed out before, we must change the async_private type such that it accomodates the different needs of normal (e.g. ReadFileEx()) and Winsock (e.g. WSARecv()) async requests. The "generic" functions in scheduler/synchro.c must be able to handle these structures without knowing what type of async_private structure they have been passed. I try to summarize the differences between the two request types here: 1. Winsock async requests have a WSAOVERLAPPED struct rather than OVERLAPPED. Unlike File I/O, the routines complete if any positive number of bytes is read (there's no such thing as BytesToRead). 2. Unlike File I/O, The WSAOVERLAPPED struct is *not* accessed in any way, except for the hEvent field. The other fields do not carry useful information and are, according to the Winsock2 specs, reserved to service providers, i.e. we are not allowed to write to them. 3. Winsock functions take a scatter/gather array of type WSABUF* instead of a single buffer, and a number of WSABUFs instead of the number of bytes to read. 4. The completion routine takes an additional DWORD argument. 5. In the case of WSARecvFrom()/WSASendTo(), the socket address and length parameters passed by the user must be stored and filled in at completion. [These are the differences I've come across so far, there may be more.] I'd therefore recommend the following, similar to the treatment of "struct object" and derived types in the server code: struct async_private; typedef void (*async_handler)(struct async_private *ovp); struct async_private { unsigned int type; /* file/socket, read/write/... */ HANDLE handle; int fd; struct async_private *prev; struct async_private *next; async_handler func; } struct async_fileio { struct async_private async; char *buffer; int count; LPOVERLAPPED lpOverlapped; LPOVERLAPPED_COMPLETION_ROUTINE completion_func; } struct async_winsock { struct async_private async; LPWSABUF wsabuf; int n_wsabufs; LPWSAOVERLAPPED overlapped; LPWSAOVERLAPPED_COMPLETION_ROUTINE completion_func; struct WS_sockaddr* addr; /* User-specified pointers */ int *addrlen; int flags; /* Return values */ int NumberOfBytesRead; int status; /* cannot be stored in overlapped */ } To my knowledge, there are only these two types of Asynchronous requests. Thus, using a "struct async_ops" like "struct object_ops" in the server code would probably be too much; the type field could instead be used for distinction between the two request types and the "generic" code in scheduler/synchro.c could incorporate respective case distinctions. To my experience this runs faster than code with function pointers if we have only two cases. Actually, we might even do without the "async_handler" field and decide which function to call only according to the "type" field, but that's a cosmetic issue. Unless anybody objects, I'll soon submit a patch incorporating this approach. Comments welcome, Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck(a)Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

4 7

Re: We *really* need a development model change !
by Gerard Patel 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

At 04:44 PM 08/01/2002 -0500, you wrote: <snip> >(Another Pythoner, cool :) ) This has given me an idea - while I don't expect it to be used in Wine, I will try to write my own test progs with it : use the *windows* python interpreter under Wine. >From the doc, it's possible to call any win32 api from it using a 'calldll' interface. If it works well, I won't need a 'test framework' - just use the standard, available tool. Gerard

4 4

Immediate IO in ReadFile / WriteFile
by Martin Wilck 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Hi Mike, I just had the following thought on the immediate IO in ReadFile() / WriteFile() that you implemented: Consider the following situation: 1. There is no data available for reading on some fd (serial port, pipe, socket). 2. An application calls ReadFile() in overlapped mode. since no data is there, an overlapped request is scheduled. 3. Data becomes available before the app issues a wait request of any kind. 4. The application starts another ReadFile() request. Now data is there, and will be read immediately. No async request is scheduled. 5. Eventually, more data will become available, and the async request first scheduled will also return. However, this basically destroys the order of the requests. I am unsure how Windows would behave in such a case, and it is certainly difficult to provide a test case for this situation. It can occur, though, and my guess is this is the wrong behaviour. Thus, probably before doing the immediate read it should be checked if there are asynchronous requests already scheduled for reading, and if yes, ReadFile() should _not_ try to read immediately but go pending. Of course, this check would require a server call. The same reasoning applies for writing, of course. Things become even more confusing if you think of several threads reading from the same file. A very simple workaround would be to go pending unconditonally for overlapped requests. Although not optimal, this would be certain not to corrupt data. What do you think? Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck(a)Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

1 1

Re: wine/ files/file.c server/file.c
by Martin Wilck 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

On 8 Jan 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > I'm not sure 002 is a good idea. It seems to encourage doing > distinctions between file types where we should instead try to handle > them in a common way. The whole point of the FD_TYPE_XYZ distinction, as it currently is, is that at some places (actually, only in WriteFile() and ReadFile()), a distinction according to fd type _must_ be made. I am not sure if Windows allows overlapped IO on the console, for example, but if yes, this patch would be a prerequisite to implement that. I just wanted to make this distinction more logical. I think it is necessary to separate fd types and flags. The distinction between regular files, pipes, sockets, ... that the patch introduces is currently not needed, but doesn't hurt IMO. If you wish, I can strip the patch down to its essential part (have separate flags for overlapped and timeout flags). I guess I could also proceed entirely without this patch, if you seriously reject it as a whole, but I fear this will bring trouble sooner or later. Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck(a)Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

2 2

Re: We *really* need a development model change !
by Andriy Palamarchuk 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Spent a couple of days trying to port my test to C unit testing framework "Check". Simple tests work fine. Problems start when I try to use multithreaded Wine tests. In one case the framework stucks on reading from pipe. Other code layouts have other issues. The cause may be in incorrect pipes handling, multi-process tests handling or interaction with Wine thread implementation. I remember I also had some problems with Perl multithreaded tests... I attached my unit test example, almost identical to the one I published before for Perl framework. There is also a whole working directory. If you want to play with the it, just unpack it to wine/programs directory. Andriy Palamarchuk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

5 14

Re: Listview ctrl
by Gerard Patel 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

At 09:31 AM 08/01/2002 -0500, you wrote: <snip> >So, after much work and no testing, here is a first try at doing that. The >good news is that it seems it compiles. The bad news is that I have no >idea how to test it. So any suggestions on how to test the listview >control, or any help with the testing is greatly appreciated, as well as >any comments on the patch itself. > I have tested it with some of my test apps and I see a few regressions. With rowlist.exe that comes with Vc++, using 'large icons' and 'full details' only the first character of the text is displayed. The little program found at www.timex.com (IIRC it installs correctly under Wine) displays another problem (maybe related) : columns other than the first can be not displayed in some cases. Gerard

1 0

Wine & non X86 processors
by Hetz Ben Hamo 09 Jan '02

09 Jan '02

Hi, A friend of mine who uses sparc machine wants to write a pentium emulator & use wine with it to run some apps... His question is - are there any special notes about wine in big endian? does he need to make lots of changes? if so, in whats parts in general? Thanks, Hetz

3 2