- Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH] deferred trace
by gerard patel 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

At 11:24 AM 10/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: >gerard patel <gerard.patel(a)asi.fr> writes: > >> This implements a way to not output the debug trace to disk until the >> user hits Alf + F12. The goal is to avoid too big trace files. > >I think it would be much better to do that with a small external >program that you pipe the debug output into. This way you can have >much more flexibility I don't see why. 2 other points : 1) I wonder if I will not lose in speed with this approach; it seems to be more efficient to stop the output ASAP, than to filter data after it has passed through a pipe. I have timed Bcb4 loading with Wine on my computer (K6-350) - without any trace : 48 seconds With a simple -debugmsg +win,+relay : - with my patch : 70 seconds -> 22 seconds overhead - with a redirection to /dev/null : 95 seconds -> 47 seconds overhead I don't know if a pipe would be more efficient that a redirection, though. 2) I don't see how I will get the window list I generate with WIN_WalkWindows if there is no change at all in Wine - I should have said that to cut in the trace size in not a goal per se, but a mean to make debugging easier. If I have to make a first run with full trace that I have to browse to see what is the meaning of the window handles appearing in the trace, I lose a lot of time. Having immediately a view of all existing windows is *very* handy. >, and you don't need to hardcode a specific key >that some apps may need. But my patch does not use the Alt+F12 key if the -dt command line option is not used. It's true that some apps use this key, but in this case it's only debugging that is affected because the app does something when I use this key. It has never been a problem until now. Maybe a signal could be used instead. Gerard

2 1

RE: The PEACE Project
by Patrik Stridvall 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

> > > What is the difference from other Win32 emulators? > > > > > > Actually, PEACE is éWin32-compatible package' rather than > > > éemulator' because > > > different from Wine and WABI, > > > > And Wine isn't a "Win32-compatible package"? > > > > > PEACE does not have éemulator > > > executable'. > > > EXE files are directly executed from sh or csh. > > > > The above is IMHO a rather clintonesque use of the words > > emulator and executable. They hide the comparable code > > in NetBSD's dynamic linker instead. > > > > Clintonesque?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's really good > dude! I guess it > follows in the tradition of words like "nasty". It follows the same tradition as the word quisling which means "A traitor that serves as the puppet of the enemy occuping his or her country." after Vidkun Quisling the notorius Norwegian traitor. Being clintonesque means "Deliberately distorting the meaning of a word or words in order to make somebody believe something that is not true." Compare Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman" using a rather non standard definition of the word sex. In the case PEACE this might not have been deliberate, but because of ignorance, so perhaps the use of the word clintonesque was too harsh. > > Not impressed, eventhough we could and probably > > should do that in the future. > > > > I thought there was another kernel module running around that > loaded wine > for exe files. Used BINFMT_MISC or something? See Chad's mail. > > However if we hide the fact Wine is run, many user > > will not realize that it really is Wine's fault > > that their Win32 application crashes and say to > > their friends that Linux is unstable which gives > > Linux a bad reputation. We don't want that do we? > > > > So we probably shouldn't make it transparent at > > least not as long Wine still is alpha. > > > > Should there ever be a kernel module exe loader? The advantage of a kernel module loader is that you can do relocation on demand as well as having the ability to just discard such pages when memory is low instead of swapping them out. > Codeweavers is on the right track here, allowing users to > launch Windows > apps from gnome by creating a file association. Agreed. > > > PEACE consists of the following 3 components: > > > > > > 1.In-kernel *.EXE loader > > > > Can't find the source but can't imagine it is very complicated. > > Probably somthing similar to what David Howells did for Linux. > > > > I thought David's module was implementing the Wine in kernel > space (e.g. > part 3 of this). This part can be done with or without > having Wine in the > kernel. Not quite he is trying to implement the Wine _server_ in kernel space. ie approximately thoses things that requires some sort of intra-process communication. > > I really can't understand why they don't cooperate > > with us in the Wine project instead. > > I cannot either. I know that there is this whole thing about > wanting to > write your own code for stuff, but that is usually a waste of time. > Furthermore, the Wine project is developed in an extremely > open way by a lot > of very talented developers. It is a real shame to see > someone who could > obviously help out the Wine project going out and doing their > own program. > > Anyone can join the wine development team. Simply subscribe > to wine-devel > and wine-patches and start hacking. Because all patches go through > Alexandre before going into CVS every developer has basically > equal chances > of getting their patch into the tree (assuming that it is > following the > overall architecture goals of Wine). Indeed and if they prefer not to communicate in english, setting up a wine-devel-jp mailing list shouldn't be a problem. Most of the patches they send in will "speak" for itself without any or at least only a very short explaination. > Actually, I would say wine is an > extremely good example of the open source development process. > > There is also no licensing issue with Wine, it's under such a liberal > license that anyone can use it! Agreed.

1 0

RE: The PEACE Project
by Patrik Stridvall 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

> > I really can't understand why they don't cooperate > > with us in the Wine project instead. > > That's exactly what I thought several weeks ago when I first > heard of it. > > Licensing issues might be the reason (I did not look at their > license !). They use the BSD license, unfortunately the one with the advertisment clause. However I don't imagine it will be a problem since there is very little if anything that they have implemented that we haven't implemented I long time ago already. Additional problem is that they use C++. :-) In short they have wasted a lot of effort for little or no gain. > Other than that I'm tired of YAW (Yet Another Windows, which is > the name of yet another windows package, coincidentally ;-) Indeed. I can understand people that start working with a project has a lot of ideas and the project leader rejects them and they grow tired and decide to do it themselves. However for a project like Wine most things really can't be done that many ways since it must be compatible with Windows so this shouldn't really be a very large problem. In this case perhaps they, being Japanse, felt uncomfortable with cooperating with english speaking people. I noticed that they have a Japanese only mailing list. Anyway we could always create a wine-devel-jp or whatever if that was a problem.

1 0

The PEACE Project
by Damjan Lango 12 Mar '01

12 Mar '01

Hi, I don't know if you know about The PEACE Project: http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/ What is PEACE? PEACE is a set of programs to run Win32 apps on NetBSD/i386 (and other ports in the future?) box. What is the difference from other Win32 emulators? Actually, PEACE is `Win32-compatible package' rather than `emulator' because different from Wine and WABI, PEACE does not have `emulator executable'. EXE files are directly executed from sh or csh. Requirements More information PEACE consists of the following 3 components: 1.In-kernel *.EXE loader 2.Dynamic linker for Windows *.DLLs 3.Win32 API implementation (i.e. core DLLs) How many Win32 API functions are implemented? Currentry, most APIs are NOT implemented. (I'm not involved in that project, just found it on the web) ciao Damjan Lango

1 0

Re: RFC: client side implementation of async I/O
by Alexandre Julliard 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

Michael McCormack <mccormac(a)aals27.alcatel.com.au> writes: > The patch can be further optimised, for example by keeping active asyncs in a > seperate list from inactive asyncs. i think it is more efficient because the > number of server calls and context switches is reduced. Reducing the number of server calls but making them more expensive is not necessarily a gain. Show me the numbers... > What i'm more interested in is whether having waiting clients running > concurrently with wineserver and those clients waking themselves from wait is > a good idea. I'm not sure it's a good idea, particularly if we want to support signals (which I think would be a good thing since it allows getting rid of the service thread). > Similarly, we could create a client side file handle cache that is alerted by > the wineserver when it becomes invalid. Before each fd is used, the cache > implementation would poll on the wineserver communication fd to confirm the > cache is valid, which would further improve the speed of file I/O. (a single > poll vs. a full server call) You'll probably still need a server call to find out about file locks at some point. And again you'll get in trouble if you want to support signals. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: [PATCH] deferred trace
by Alexandre Julliard 10 Mar '01

10 Mar '01

gerard patel <gerard.patel(a)asi.fr> writes: > This implements a way to not output the debug trace to disk until the > user hits Alf + F12. The goal is to avoid too big trace files. I think it would be much better to do that with a small external program that you pipe the debug output into. This way you can have much more flexibility, and you don't need to hardcode a specific key that some apps may need. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Palette managing
by kenon＠go2.pl 10 Mar '01

10 Mar '01

Hi In file windows/painting.c in function RealizePalette16 I found that line 1713: if (hWnd) SendMessageA( HWND_BROADCAST, WM_PALETTECHANGED, hWnd, 0L); broke some applications . When I comment it out - every things work well, but when I leave it some child-windows are displayed in improper place. I think this message should be sent only when used entry in COLOR_sysPal is replaced by new one (function X11DRV_PALETTE_SetMapping in line 907 when index == -1). Maciek Kaliszewski

1 0

Re: Edit control notification fix
by Andreas Mohr 09 Mar '01

09 Mar '01

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:52:56PM +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Hello. > > Andreas Mohr privately reported that some old 16-bit installer > started to not update its edit control after my patch entitled > "Do not notify parent of the Edit control on WM_SETTEXT when Edit > is part of the ComboBox." Investigation has shown that installer > has its main dialog window defined in resources, and DIALOG_GetControl16() > gets edit control with style ES_COMBO (0x200) defined there. > My first attempt to fix the trouble was to simply mask out not > allowed styles in the DIALOG_GetControl16(): i.e. for edit control > do style &= ~ES_COMBO. That hack cured the application, but Andreas Well, that's not exactly true. You did not do it "for edit control". You did it for *all* controls in DIALOG_GetControl16() (at least in the patch you sent me). That's why I objected. I just had to :) > didn't like that approach. After some thinking, I added yet another > test into my "Edit Control Test Suit". And here is the result of it. > > Changelog: > Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> > Do not send notification to parent of an edit control, > if parent is a child window. Remove old and not correct patch. OK. I can't really judge whether that's correct, as I'm not too much into these kinds of things. Hopefully it's correct :) Thanks again, Andreas Mohr

2 1

Re: Speeding up wineserver syncronization objects with shared memory
by Alexandre Julliard 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

David Howells <dhowells(a)cambridge.redhat.com> writes: > Not so... The file offset must also be page aligned! OK, this has apparently changed in kernel 2.4; in kernel 2.2 block size alignment is enough. That's unfortunate, but I guess it was necessary to support large files or memory sizes. Then yes, in 2.4 your patch will be more useful. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: Speeding up wineserver syncronization objects with shared memory
by Alexandre Julliard 08 Mar '01

08 Mar '01

David Howells <dhowells(a)cambridge.redhat.com> writes: > My main gripe is the slow speed of access to files... Every Read/WriteFile > goes to the wineserver to convert the handle into a file descriptor and to > check for locking. The FD is then passed back over a UNIX domain socket, used > once and then closed. Note that we are no longer doing that in the latest versions; the file descriptor is only transferred once, and all further requests are done on a pipe which is faster than a socket. > Gavriel State <gav(a)transgaming.com> wrote: > > In my experience Alexandre far prefers incremental change to kind of > > approach you're taking. Using that kind of approach will improve the > > chances that your code will make it into Wine at some point. > > Hmmm... It's difficult to determine how to do it incrementally without making > for even more work, but I think I know what you mean. The kernel module itself may be hard to do incrementally, but you should really consider reusing the existing server API so that your module can be plugged in easily. For instance your module entry points should be the same as the server requests, and use the same request structures. > Context switching is the main element of it. Going to the wineserver and back > again just for a ReadFile() call or a Wait*() function incurs a fairly serious > penalty (particularly on an X86, I think). Plus there's no requirement for the > kernel to pass the remains of your timeslice to the wineserver and back > again. I still think that it should be possible to improve that by a small kernel hack. It will never be as fast as doing everything in the kernel of course, but it may just be fast enough to avoid the need to reimplement the whole server. > Look at the VM size of something like MS Word, and think of not having to > allocate buffers to store all those DLLs, thus eating a massive chunk out of > your machines total VM. Have you measured how many dirty pages you can avoid with your change? It seems to me that in most cases, when the dll is loaded at its preferred address, the number of pages made dirty by the fixups should be quite small anyway. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 2