December 2001 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: DOS packing patch (fix)
by Lionel Ulmer Dec. 25, 2001

Dec. 25, 2001

Hi all, I am a bit worried by this patch : I looked at how "pshpack1.h" works, and it uses the '#pragma pack(1)' method when compiling with GCC. > +/* WARNING: one byte packed structs from here !! (i.e. not DWORD aligned) */ > +#include "pshpack1.h" > + And I wonder if this really works as with the latest versions of GCC (2.95.3 onwards AFAIK), '#pragma pack(1)' is ignored (at least on my self-compiled GCC :-) ) and you need to use the '__attribute((__packed__))' construction after each structure. But well, I may say completely stupid things as otherwise a lot of bugs would exist in Wine... Lionel PS: Merry Christmas all :-) -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/

1 0

16 bit comm issue
by Mike McCormack Dec. 24, 2001

Dec. 24, 2001

Hi, There's a problem with the current 16bit comm architecture which i'm not sure how to solve correctly. If a 16bit Windows programs uses EnableCommNotification to receive WM_COMMNOTIFY messages then sits in a message loop waiting for them, it will never receive them because there is no chance for APC that sends the message (COMM16_ReadComplete) to run. I have a patch for this problem which puts an alertable wait in GetMessage(16), which i posted in October. What is the problem with this method, and is there a better solution to the problem? Mike ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack(a)start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

2 1

DOS stuff pretty much broken [Re: wine/ dlls/kernel/kernel_main.c dlls/kernel/wp ...]
by Andreas Mohr Dec. 24, 2001

Dec. 24, 2001

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:54:50PM -0500, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > ChangeSet ID: 1007495689308334133587778 > CVSROOT: /opt/cvs-commit > Module name: wine > Changes by: julliard(a)wine2. 01/12/04 14:54:50 > > Modified files: > dlls/kernel : kernel_main.c wprocs.spec > dlls/ntdll : Makefile.in ntdll.spec > dlls/winedos : Makefile.in dosvm.c int09.c module.c > winedos.spec > graphics : dispdib.c > include : callback.h miscemu.h > miscemu : main.c > msdos : Makefile.in dosmem.c dpmi.c int20.c int21.c > int2f.c interrupts.c ioports.c > Added files: > dlls/winedos : devices.c dosaspi.c dosexe.h int10.c int16.c > int17.c int19.c int20.c int21.c int29.c int31.c > int33.c ioports.c vga.c vga.h xms.c > Removed files: > include : dosexe.h vga.h > msdos : devices.c dosaspi.c int10.c int16.c int17.c > int19.c int29.c int33.c vga.c xms.c > > Log message: > Moved most of the real-mode stuff to dlls/winedos. > > Patch: http://cvs.winehq.com/patch.py?id=1007495689308334133587778 This one probably breaks a whole heap of older Win3.x apps. When I started the Win98 setup.exe for fun, it choked on int 0x21 "list of lists" (DOS_LOLSeg not initialized). Trouble is that we initialize DOS variables in case of DOS programs *only*. This is rather fatal IMHO, especially in the case of List Of Lists, which is a pretty important structure with lots of information that some Win 3.x programs might rely on. Thus DOS stuff should be reorganized somehow. Any suggestions ? IMHO probably winedos should get loaded as soon as DOS3Call() gets called even once. -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/

2 1

fixme:dialog:MSGBOX_OnInit task modal msgbox ! Not modal yet.
by Laurent Pinchart Dec. 24, 2001

Dec. 24, 2001

When trying to install The Longest Journey (an adventure game), I ran into a problem with modal message boxes. The installer displays at some point a task modal message box, but for some reason the box disapears almost instantly, and I'm stuck with a focused installshield screen on which I can't do anything as the task modal msgbox is invisible and unfocused. I'd like to implement the modal message boxes to fix my problem, but I don't know where to start. Could someone give me a few indication about what would be required to achieve a proper behaviour or modal message boxes ? Thanks. Laurent Pinchart

4 8

Terrible bug: WinExec16, DOS programs
by Andreas Mohr Dec. 24, 2001

Dec. 24, 2001

Hi all, I just found out that WinExec16 doesn't even support starting DOS programs. Whereas LoadModule16 doesn't seem to support loading DOS programs (error 22, which is not documented for LoadModule16), WinExec16 definitely does launch command.com on Win98SE. Not so when using Wine. What to do about that ? More specifically, which functions to change how exactly to support this ? (the whole interoperation between WinExec, WinExec16, LoadModule*, LoadLibrary*,CreateProcess etc. is highly problematic). This thing makes me get slightly worried about our Win16/DOS compatibility as a whole... :-\ -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/

1 0

Windows screensaver.
by gleb＠nbase.co.il Dec. 24, 2001

Dec. 24, 2001

Hello all, Perhaps this was asked before, but I didn't find the answer. Is it possible to run windows screensaver in linux using wine? If not, how hard it will be to write support for this? Thanks, -- Gleb.

2 2

Re: License debate conclusion
by James Tabor Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

Dan Kegel wrote: > > Roger Fujii wrote: > > I'm sad. The LGPL seems like the clearest hope we have of protecting > Wine against companies that want to take it and never contribute code > back. Its protection might not be airtight -- but it would clearly > communicate the spirit. And my impresson was that the majority of > Wine developers agree. > > > - Dan Hum????????? Like the ODIN Project! James

1 0

Re: License debate conclusion
by Dan Kegel Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

James wrote: > > Dan Kegel wrote: > > I'm sad. The LGPL seems like the clearest hope we have of protecting > > Wine against companies that want to take it and never contribute code > > back. Its protection might not be airtight -- but it would clearly > > communicate the spirit. And my impresson was that the majority of > > Wine developers agree. > > Like the ODIN Project! Good point. The ODIN project's license is at http://odin.netlabs.org/License.phtml There was some talk of sharing code between Wine and Odin in 1999; see http://www.winehq.com/News/1999-50.html#0 We might want to update http://www.winehq.com/others.html to reflect the current status and license of the Odin project. I'm not quite sure whether the Odin license is compatible with the LGPL. It looks fairly GPL compatible, but I didn't look hard. - Dan

1 0

Re: License debate conclusion
by Roger Fujii Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.com> wrote: > > My conclusion is that there clearly isn't enough support in the > developers community to justify changing the license. So I'm not going > to proceed with any change, either now or in the foreseeable future. hurrah. before this is concluded, I will add one thing just for the sake of archival (in case this comes up again). If ALL of wine were strictly LGPLed, basically, *all* propriatary extensions could no longer be included. Why? Because the output of winebuild will be LGPLed, thus no propriatary programs could use its output in creating a shared library. winebuild is like bison in this case, and the output of bison has a special exemption so that you can use it in something other than *GPLed programs. This inadvertant problem is precisely why *GPLed stuff has to be scrutinized carefully if you care about commercial relationships (most *GPL projects don't care) and is why commerical interests are wary of projects with a *GPL license. -r

6 6

[Fwd: Re: License debate conclusion]
by lee Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

> I think it's clear that Wine cares, and should be careful not to alienate > companies like Codeweaver and Transgaming. One way to deal with Transgaming > might be to start a campaign to get people to buy Transgaming subscriptions, > or perhaps try to rummage up enough of a one-time payment to get Transgaming > to contribute their current changes back. I suspect that there's some > such arrangement they'd be happy with. I tried to do just that and got rejected ( error after submitting and didn't want to try 'again' until they contact me ) by the online payment system for some odd reason....I wonder how many others have experineced this ( I checked my input twice and had all *'s filled out )........granted it could be isolated in that I made some minor goof on form..-we'll see. just a fyi in case it wasnt' me.. lee -===

1 0