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

mIRC crash when processing large files.
by rpbrown＠xtra.co.nz June 5, 2001

June 5, 2001

Details how to replicate the crash. (yes its time consuming, but it shows the crash) Ok, this is what I do to crash mIRC in wine. I install the mp3-script for mIRC. http://welcome.to/autoget load the script according to the readme..and join IRC Undernet, any Undernet server will do. /join #mpthree the person we're looking for is SuperServ (an Op) right mouse on the nick, and grab there mp3 list.. you can try other ppls lists, but SuperServ has a rather big list (8Mb) which at the end of the download the script keeps on loading (processing the txt file) ..and then crashes mIRC. Loading _this_ list itself into mIRC under windows normally, mIRC is locked for a 3-4 minutes (processing the list).. maybe wine gives up too soon, since its not getting a response within X amount of time. Or the list is too big for wine to handle? thats my guesses.. I hope this helps. -mdew

1 0

uname(1) on UnixWare (Solaris)
by Bang Jun-Young June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Hi, I've nearly completed new DLL configuration code in configure.in. Before making it available, I need to know what uname(1) command prints out on UnixWare (and Solaris?). As in NetBSD, it's: $ uname NetBSD I guess it would be $ uname UnixWare on UnixWare. I also wonder if UnixWare and Solaris refer to the same. Jun-Young -- Bang Jun-Young <bjy(a)mogua.org>

1 0

Re: FreeType autoconf checks
by Alexandre Julliard June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > CPPFLAGS works. Where the heck is that documented? (I can't find it in > the info pages for gcc or cpp.) It's not a gcc option, it's a configure internal variable (from $ac_cpp definition). This is the whole point: it will work independently of the compiler, or at least break the same way during configure and during the compile, which is what we want. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: PATCH: set_thread_buffer fixed
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Marcus Meissner wrote: > Is this the case where set_thread_buffer fails or not? > Okay, it is not. It crashes in debug_printf or dump_exports (pe_image.c). However, it is so too a glibc-2.1.3 problem. I think. Sort of. The same Wine that crashes with kernel 2.4.4 and 2.4.5 works fine with kernel 2.2.14, and I bet later 2.2.x kernels when (if) I get around to building them. I think I might not be smart enough to debug it in detail. Maybe I should just send www4mail after glibc-2.2 instead. > I don't see a failure message here. > > Also, could you try to run the attached test program and see if it fails? success with either kernel version. Hmmm, do I have 2.0.30 still lying around? 1.3.18? > > Ciao, Marcus > Lawson Constants aren't, and variables won't. ---cut--- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Re: FreeType autoconf checks
by Alexandre Julliard June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > One thing to keep in mind, however. The FreeType headers themselves > use relative paths to include one another, so this is an issue that > we're not going to be able to completely eliminate. This is why I > had to mess around with the C_INCLUDE_PATH variable; AC_CHECK_HEADER > tries to preprocess the header file, so it has to be able to find any > subsidiary headers. (Is this what you mean by finding a way to check > that #include <freetype/freetype.h> works?) Yes; we should be using only relative paths in AC_CHECK_HEADER, since this is what we will use in the code. I don't think C_INCLUDE_PATH is portable either. Did you try setting CPPFLAGS instead? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: FreeType autoconf checks
by Ian Pilcher June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > Well, I don't like it much, but I haven't had time to look into a > better solution yet. Basically I think it's dangerous to check for the > file name with an absolute path and then include it with a relative > path, since there is no guarantee we'll get the same file. I think we > should really find a way to check that #include <freetype/freetype.h> > works given the right C flags. Also I'm not sure about the portability > of the ${FREETYPEINCL#-I} construct. > I see your point. Now that I think about it, I probably would have been bitten by it if anyone will. I run Red Hat 7.1 which has: /usr/include/freetype/freetype.h (from FreeType 1.x) /usr/include/freetype2/freetype/freetype.h (from FreeType 2.x) I just checked the gcc documentation, and directories specified with '-I' options on the command line are checked first. I have no idea, however, if other compilers behave in a similar manner. Using absolute paths for the FreeType headers would be non-trivial, but probably doable. We would have to use autoconf to define macros that include the complete path name of the headers we want to include; then #include those macros instead of the file names. Somehow, I don't think you're going to want to do that. One thing to keep in mind, however. The FreeType headers themselves use relative paths to include one another, so this is an issue that we're not going to be able to completely eliminate. This is why I had to mess around with the C_INCLUDE_PATH variable; AC_CHECK_HEADER tries to preprocess the header file, so it has to be able to find any subsidiary headers. (Is this what you mean by finding a way to check that #include <freetype/freetype.h> works?) I also had the same thought about the ${FREETYPEINCL#-I} construct. According to http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/chap2.html#tag_001_006_002 it seems to be OK. Frankly, I share your distaste for this whole mess. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher ian.pilcher(a)home.com ========================================================================

1 0

Re: fixup bogus SetLastError()
by Alexandre Julliard June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > objects/gdiobj.c really has no business dealing with SetLastError(). > SetLastError() is a mechanism to communicate errors to external programs, > so it should definitely not be used for highly internal functions. You didn't include the gdiobj.c patch, but I disagree with it anyway... There can be many good reasons for setting last error in internal functions; for instance setting it inside GDI_GetObjPtr avoids having to set it in every single caller. And in the very rare case where this is not what we want, the caller can always set it to another value. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

3 2

stack limit
by Stephen Crowley June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

What is the correct way to increase the default stack size for winelib applications? Also, are there any drawbacks to making the value fairly large? -- Stephen Crowley Software Engineer Placemark Investments 972.404.8100 x28

2 1

Re: stack limit
by Alexandre Julliard June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

Stephen Crowley <stephenc(a)placemark.com> writes: > What is the proper way to increase the stack size for winelib > applications? There seems to be a limit of around 2^20 bytes right now. There is no way to do this at the moment; but it shouldn't be too hard to add support for a 'stack' statement in the application spec file. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: fixup bogus SetLastError()
by Alexandre Julliard June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

520053692817-0001(a)t-online.de (Andreas Mohr) writes: > Now that's where I disagree ! > The caller can *not* always set it to another value. > If it does and the program intends to read the LastError of a *previously* > executed API that failed, then the LastError will be reset even though > it shouldn't have been ! Then the caller needs to save/restore it across the GDI_GetObjPtr call. That's trivial to do. > In short: the SetLastError behaviour needs to match Windows behaviour very, > very closely. Definitely; but it's not clear to me that not setting last error is anywhere closer to Windows than setting it to INVALID_HANDLE. GDI_GetObjPtr should do what most callers need, and IMO this means setting it. I may be wrong, I haven't checked the error returns of all GDI functions (and of course this is nowhere documented). > This would be SelectObject() in this case, BTW. Which case? Do you have evidence that a SelectObject() with an invalid handle must not set last error? If so then of course it needs fixing. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1