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

Re: Handling X errors using exception handlers
by Alexandre Julliard July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

Lionel Ulmer <lionel.ulmer(a)free.fr> writes: > The only problems I could see with this approach is that : > > - it cannot 'expect' more than one kind of error at the same time I was thinking you could use a special value as a "wildcard" for the error codes, in which case it wouldn't be tested for a match. > - I am not sure that the parameters thing are really a good idea. Are we > sure that the error code are the same on all X servers ? Are they > standardized ? They are part of the X spec AFAICT, so yes it should be pretty much standard. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

native dll's
by José Soriano Díaz July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

Hi there, I'm working in a telerobotics project and I need to link a windows dll in order to use a Cybernet Joystick. First I tried to use the winAPI functions LoadLibrary,FreeLibrary and GetProccessAddress as I were working on Windows, and I recompiled my program with winelib: *. winemaker /my_path/ *. ./configure *. make all but it didn't create any executable, what I obtained was a lib*.so, because winemaker thought I was trying to compile a dll, not to use one. After that I tried to compile my program without winemaker, and I obtained a HEAP_PTR error when executing what I copiled. And If I tried to link the lib*.so and load the main symbol I obtained the same error. So my question is quite siple How can I link a native dll in a Unix project? I've read somewhere that I have to use a parser, Is there anybody who can give me some code? Thanks for your precious time. _________________________________________________________________ Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en http://explorer.msn.es/intl.asp

2 1

DrawText
by Travis Michielsen July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

Fully implement DrawText* functions. - Travis Michielsen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

2 5

Re: CallWindowProc syntax
by Alexandre Julliard July 25, 2001

July 25, 2001

Marco Bizzarri <m.bizzarri(a)icube.it> writes: > While looking at the source code of wine, I looked into the synopsys of > the CallWindowProc function. According to winproc.c, the hWnd parameter > should be the handle to the window which has to receive the message. > > OTOH, if you look at MSDN, at > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winui/hh/w… > > it looks like the hWnd is the windows procedure which should receive the > message. hWnd is clearly a window handle, not a window procedure. As a rule, any resemblance between what MSDN says and what the code actually does is purely fortuitous. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Wine Winex Half-life/Nox and alsa
by FT Rathore July 25, 2001

July 25, 2001

Hi I tried Jul 23 cvs of wine and winex and tried with Nox and Half Life. Both wine and winex work fine with the stock kernel sound drivers (es1371) but they do not work well with alsa with oss emulation. The sound gets played extremely fast in Half-Life like someone hit the fast-forward button. It is strange because the timing on the alsa oss-emulation (and commercial oss drivers) is better than the stock kernel drivers. Winex does a lot of improvement in Half-Life and it is fully playable (the splash, the menu and everything). Nox works near perfect with wine but it does not work at all with winex. FT

1 0

(no subject)
by José Soriano Díaz July 25, 2001

July 25, 2001

Hi there, I'm working in a telerobotics project and I need to link a windows dll in order to use a Cybernet Joystick. First I tried to use the winAPI functions LoadLibrary,FreeLibrary and GetProccessAddress as I were working on Windows, and I recompiled my program with winelib: *. winemaker /my_path/ *. ./configure *. make all but it didn't create any executable, what I obtained was a lib*.so, because winemaker thought I was trying to compile a dll, not to use one. After that I tried to compile my program without winemaker, and I obtained a HEAP_PTR error when executing what I copiled. And If I tried to link the lib*.so and load the main symbol I obtained the same error. So my question is quite siple How can I link a native dll in a Unix project? I've read somewhere that I have to use a parser, Is there anybody who can give me some code? Thanks for your precious time. _________________________________________________________________ Descargue GRATUITAMENTE MSN Explorer en http://explorer.msn.es/intl.asp

1 0

CallWindowProc syntax
by Marco Bizzarri July 25, 2001

July 25, 2001

Hi all. While looking at the source code of wine, I looked into the synopsys of the CallWindowProc function. According to winproc.c, the hWnd parameter should be the handle to the window which has to receive the message. OTOH, if you look at MSDN, at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/winui/hh/w… it looks like the hWnd is the windows procedure which should receive the message. Can anyone help? Thanks Marco Bizzarri m.bizzarri(a)icube.it

1 0

Re: Make built-in font data read-only
by Alexandre Julliard July 25, 2001

July 25, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > If all pointers have to be eliminated, I can't see any way to do it. > In order for the code to have any kind of sanity, built-in font metrics > and dynamically loaded font metrics have to use the same data model, and > I don't think it's even remotely practical to get rid of the pointers in > the case of the dynamically loaded metrics. Well, if it's not feasible so be it. But if it's at all possible I think it's worth some reasonable amount of trouble. > I'm open to suggestions, but I think that the effort involved in doing > this (assuming a sane way could be found) probably far outweighs the > benefit (less swap usage if the data is paged out; is there any other > benefit?). The main benefit is sharing between processes; so if you have 10 processes that want to print you only have one copy of the font data in memory. Plus it gets loaded on-demand so data that isn't used doesn't need to be loaded from disk at all. > Just in case I get inspired, though, what tool/command are you using to > determine read-only vs. read/write data sizes? Can I just go by what > objdump says about .data and .rodata? objdump is fine yes. size works too, though I seem to remember some versions not counting .rodata correctly. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: Make built-in font data read-only
by Alexandre Julliard July 24, 2001

July 24, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > Log message: > Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> > WINEPS: make built-in font data read-only Unfortunately the data still isn't stored in read-only memory even though it is declared const, because the structures contain pointers that require relocation. Would it be possible to store offsets instead of pointers? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: move 16bit COMM code to USER
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com July 24, 2001

July 24, 2001

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:11:05 +1000 Mike McCormack <mike_mccormack(a)start.com.au> writes: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format > > ------=_NextPart_000_83577347 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > This patch completes the seperation of the 16bit COMM code from > KERNEL > and moves it to USER. Seems to work with Terminal from WFW 3.11. > > Mike If you get this, it seems to work for juno 1.49 too. Lawson ---oof--- > ChangeLog: > move 16-bit COMM code to USER dll > > ________________________________________________________________ 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

Microsoft source code releases - a danger to Wine?
by Ian Pilcher July 24, 2001

July 24, 2001

According to Slashdot, Microsoft has released the Windows CE source code under one of their "shared source" licenses. Needless to say, it would be an *extremely* bad idea for anyone associated with the Wine project to look at it. This leads me to wonder if anyone's ever thought of taking steps to protect Wine from "contamination" by Microsoft IP (legally, not tech- nically :-). As the number of programmers who have been exposed to MS source code grows the chances of this happening will increase. I believe that the FSF uses some type of form/statement before they will accept code, and it seems like the nature of this project would make it particularly beneficial. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher ian.pilcher(a)home.com ========================================================================

5 6

Re: oleaut32 patch
by Alexandre Julliard July 24, 2001

July 24, 2001

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > - changes OaBuildVersion() to always return a very high version value > (2.xx.0xffff), which can be overridden in the config file to deliver > an exact value instead Do we really need such an obscure parameter in the main config file? Are there actual cases where setting the version based on -winver is not enough? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Compile error, Please help!!!!!Thanks
by EriK W July 24, 2001

July 24, 2001

Hi gurus, Please help me out with the fatal compiling problem. I am using soalris8 x86 with wine-20010629, Any suggestion would be highly appreciated! /usr/openwin/include/X11/Xutil.h:56: warning: ignoring pragma: "@(#)Xutil.h 1.2 00/07/05 SMI gcc -Wl,-G -Wl,-h,/usr/local/lib/libwine_tsx11.so locking.o ts_xf86dga.o ts_xf86dga2.o ts_xf86vmode.o ts_xshm.o ts_xlib.o ts_xresource.o ts_xvideo.o ts_xutil.o ts_shape.o ts_xpm.o -o libwine_tsx11.so.1.0 rm -f libwine_tsx11.so && ln -s libwine_tsx11.so.1.0 libwine_tsx11.so LD_LIBRARY_PATH="../../unicode:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" ../../tools/winebuild/winebuild -fPIC -L../../dlls -o ntdll.spec.c -spec ./ntdll.spec ld.so.1: ../../tools/winebuild/winebuild: fatal: /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so: open failed: No such file or directory *** Error code 137 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `ntdll.spec.c' Current working directory /export/home/ericw/system/wine-20010629/dlls/ntdll *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `ntdll/libntdll.so' Current working directory /export/home/ericw/system/wine-20010629/dlls *** Error code 1 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `dlls'

1 0

Re: Function declaration fixes
by Francois Gouget July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: [...] > *** declarations > > * dlls/msvcrt/cpp.c, > dlls/msvcrt/exit.c, > dlls/msvcrt/mbcs.c, > dlls/msvcrt/msvcrt.h, > dlls/ntdll/signal_i386.c, > dlls/shell32/shlmenu.c, > include/wine/undocshell.h: > - Made sure that the files that contains the declarations > of the implementated functions are included. > - Corrected mismatching prototypes. > - Cleaned up the include section. You should not add a prototype for MSVCRT_isleadbyte and MSVCRT_realloc in wine/dlls/msvcrt/msvcrt.h. These are declared in include/msvcrt/wctype.h and include/msvcrt/malloc.h respectively. The correct fix is to include these headers where needed. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Broadcast message : fin du monde dans cinq minutes, repentez vous !

1 0

[PROBLEM REPORT] Edit control line scrolling
by Gerard Patel July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

With programs using a multiline edit control, such as Notepad (I'm using Win3.11 version) or Eudora Light 1.5 with mails from the 'In' mailbox (this is a 32 bits application), scrolling down the edit buffer line by line mostly does not work. In fact, it works only if the edit buffer size is an exact multiple of the line height. In all other cases, the format rectangle is smaller than the client size, and when the edit control tries to redraw the last line, the update rectangle is wrong : only the lower part of the line is drawn. I think that this problem can be traced to the replacement of code in ScrollWindowEx by the call to ScrollDC. What is happening is that the client rectangle is scrolled, but the client rectangle is bigger than the formatting rectangle by a few pixels; these pixels are missing in the update region. In Wine previous version, the client rectangle was first ANDed with the so-called 'visible region' (hvisRgn), so the result was not bigger than the format rectangle before being scrolled, then diff-ed with it. The following patch works around this problem. I don't have time to investigate further as I am taking one week of holidays :-) but if someone is interested in the edit control.... Gerard Index: dlls/x11drv/scroll.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/x11drv/scroll.c,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.2 scroll.c --- dlls/x11drv/scroll.c 2001/06/20 00:18:48 1.2 +++ dlls/x11drv/scroll.c 2001/07/22 22:12:06 @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ hrgn2 = CreateRectRgnIndirect( &rect ); if (hrgn) SetRectRgn( hrgn, rClip.left, rClip.top, rClip.right, rClip.bottom ); else hrgn = CreateRectRgn( rClip.left, rClip.top, rClip.right, rClip.bottom ); - CombineRgn( hrgn, hrgn, hrgn2, RGN_AND ); + CombineRgn( hrgn2, hrgn, hrgn2, RGN_AND ); OffsetRgn( hrgn2, dx, dy ); CombineRgn( hrgn, hrgn, hrgn2, RGN_DIFF );

2 1

Why is this wrong?
by Bill Medland July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

The code of "perfect_graphics" (attached) gives my system problems. The visible aspect of the problem is that the text in our application's listview doesn't get drawn properly. By experimentation I have narrowed it down to when perfect_graphics was edited. I observe that our application works correctly under the two following cases: 1. When the body of the function is removed and the value is hard-coded to true 2. When the "inline" is removed (which is the fix I am proposing and will submit in a moment) Since I do not like working without understanding I would like to know: Is there something wrong with the use of "inline" in this context? Or is there clearly something wrong with my build environment? Or is everyone else as confused by it as me? TIA Bill begin 600 e1 M+RHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ M*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ#0H@*B @(" @(" @(" @<&5R M9F5C=%]G<F%P:&EC<PT*("H-"B J($9A=F]R(&-O<G)E8W1N97-S(&]R('-P M965D/PT*("HO#0IS=&%T:6,@:6YL:6YE(&EN="!P97)F96-T7V=R87!H:6-S M*'9O:60I#0I[#0H@(" @<W1A=&EC(&EN="!P97)F96-T(#T(a)+3$[#0H@(" @ M:68@*'!E<F9E8W0@/3T(a)+3$I#0H@(" @>PT*"4A+15D@:&ME>3L-"@EC:&%R M(&)U9F9E<ELR,%T[#0H)+RH(a)9&5F875L="!V86QU92 J+PT*"7!E<F9E8W0@ M/2 P.PT*"6EF*"%296=/<&5N2V5Y02A(2T597TQ/0T%,7TU!0TA)3D4L(")3 M;V9T=V%R95Q<5VEN95Q<5VEN95Q<0V]N9FEG7%QX,3%D<G8B+" F:&ME>2DI M#0H)>PT*"2 @("!$5T]21"!T>7!E+"!C;W5N=" ]('-I>F5O9BAB=69F97(I M.PT*"2 @("!I9B(a)A4F5G475E<GE686QU945X02AH:V5Y+" B4&5R9F5C=$=R M87!H:6-S(BP@,"P@)G1Y<&4L(&)U9F9E<BP@)F-O=6YT*2D-"B @(" @(" @ M(" @('L-"B @(" @(" @(" @(" @("!C:&%R(&-H(#T(a)8G5F9F5R6S!=.PT* M(" @(" @(" @(" @(" @('!E<F9E8W0@/2 H8V@@/3T@)WDG('Q\(&-H(#T] M("=9)R!\?"!C:" ]/2 G="<@?'P(a)8V@@/3T@)U0G('Q\(&-H(#T]("<Q)RD[ M#0H@(" @(" @(" @("!]#0H)(" @(%)E9T-L;W-E2V5Y*&AK97DI.PT*"7T- @"B @("!]#0H@(" @<F5T=7)N('!E<F9E8W0[#0I]#0IY ` end

1 0

Re: Executable permissions on .exe/.com files
by Alexandre Julliard July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero(a)redhat.de> writes: > Since some people will probably want to use BINFMT_MISC or similar > functionality to run wine transparently, I think we need the possibility > to set executable permissions on wine-generated (e.g. by "wine setup.exe") > .exe/.com files. > > This patch implements this (optionally - new configure switch). I have applied it, but without the configure switch. I think it should be OK to always set the permissions, and if it turns out to cause trouble we should add a run-time option, not a compile-time one. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: implement BuildCommDCB16 using BuildCommDCB
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:59:35 +1000 Mike McCormack <mike_mccormack(a)start.com.au> writes: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format > > ------=_NextPart_000_80675836 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > This (untested) patch completes the COMM16 code seperation. The > COMM16 > code can now be moved into USER (i think). > > Mike Juno 1.49 finds no fault with this, but AFAICS from a comm trace, the app doesn't use the DCB functions, so this is not such a conclusive test. Anybody else have any 16 bit comms apps? Lawson ---oof--- > ChangeLog: > rewrite BuildCommDCB16 to depend on BuildCommDCB, not vice-versa > ________________________________________________________________ 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

Still problems with snoop
by Uwe Bonnes July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

Hallo, some days ago I reported early crashes when running with the snoop debug option. E.g. vc98 msedv.exe is a good example. Running with "+snoop" crashes early. Running with "-snoop=devshl" lets the program succeed much further. Running without snoop gets even substancial further. So I think there must be something wrong with snoop. I tried to look hard at relay32/snoop.c, but didn't see anything fishy. So perhaps somebody else has some idea what's going wrong. Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

2 2

Re: PATCH: msvcrt.ungetc
by Alexandre Julliard July 23, 2001

July 23, 2001

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> writes: > --- include/msvcrt/stdio.h 2001/05/07 18:18:34 1.2 > +++ include/msvcrt/stdio.h 2001/07/21 12:43:43 > @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ > int _charbuf; > int _bufsiz; > char* _tmpfname; > + int _ungetc; > } MSVCRT(FILE); You cannot do that, the FILE structure has to remain binary compatible. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

RE: Microsoft source code releases - a danger to Wine?
by Patrik Stridvall July 22, 2001

July 22, 2001

> There'a a legal doctrine whose name I can remember (I'm too young for > senior moments!) ... "inevitable contamination" or something It is call "inevitable disclosure" I think. > like that. > The basic idea is that someone who had been exposed to > Microsoft source > code and then worked on Wine within a given period of time would be > assumed to have used knowledge gained from that exposure. I believe > that the burden would be on that person or the Wine project to show > the opposite. For that person, perhaps. IIRC the doctrine of "inevitable disclosure" it on a little shaky ground as it is eventhough some Judges have use it so far, it is NOT 100% established doctrine. As far as the Wine project is concerned, you will have to stretch the doctrine pretty far since the Wine project can't possibly know what a patch submittor has done before unless he tells us himself. > This is what I'm really worried about. Some well-meaning hacker takes > "Advanced Operating System Theory" at a Microsoft-beholden university > and then makes a contribution to Wine. (The more I think about it, > I'm surprised Microsoft isn't trying harder to expose more people to > their code and license.) Sure, we probaly need to make others more aware of that, but that primarily concerns them, not us. > Fair use? We don't need stinking fair use! After all, that might > interfere with corporate earnings reports. (I'm too old to become a > communist!) And favouring fair use have what to do with communism? It is entirely possible to have a capitalistic society without Intellectuall Property (IP) at all or with very weak IP (strong fair use). > > That said, nothing I can see appears to restrict someone > who has accepted > > their license from answering explicit questions we might > have, so long as > > they are not doing so for hire (thus 'commercially'), and > so long as they > > don't distribute source code. A fair bit of useful > knowledge might be > > gained in that way, albeit slowly. > > > > > Now you're really scaring me! Why? Any violation is primarily their problem and extending derived work over a verbal description is stretching far to far. This has already been established by actual court case.

2 1

RE: Microsoft source code releases - a danger to Wine?
by Patrik Stridvall July 22, 2001

July 22, 2001

> > Worse yet: If we coincidentally use similar code to theirs, > how can we > > prove we haven't looked at their code? If I were paranoid, > I'd say the > > single purpose of releasing the source was to get wine in trouble. > > It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you! Perhaps not, but do you really have proof that they are out to get you? :-) Seriously, I think you should calm down, getting to upset will do you no good. > IANAL, but distribution has been limited enough to this point > that they > would probably have to show some plausible manner in which > the exposure > could have occured. That's why I think wider distribution increases > the vigilance required. The burden of proof is still on Microsoft, not us.

1 0

RE: Microsoft source code releases - a danger to Wine?
by Patrik Stridvall July 22, 2001

July 22, 2001

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > > This leads me to wonder if anyone's ever thought of taking steps to > > protect Wine from "contamination" by Microsoft IP (legally, > not tech- > > nically :-). > > What can we do about that? Since none of the people involved > is going to > have a look at the actual M$ source, how are we supposed to know if a > patch posted on the list is taken from them? We can't and we don't have to. The burden of proof is on Microsoft. Of course it is a civil cases and the proof need only be on preponderence of evidence but it still their burden primarily. > Worse yet: If we coincidentally use similar code to theirs, how can we > prove we haven't looked at their code? If I were paranoid, I'd say the > single purpose of releasing the source was to get wine in trouble. First of all: We know who submitted a patch since that information is in the CVS log, so unless they can prove that Alexandre should have realized the person submitting the patch, submitted code not copyrighted by that person, the burden fall on that person and that person alone. If that person can't be identified through the e-mail adress to bad for Microsoft. If he can they will have to drag him to court, not the Wine project. Sure Microsoft probably can ask the Wine remove the offending code and sue us if we don't, but since we in fact also are a victim of the submitters misrepresentation I think any reasonable judge would: 1. Require that Microsoft prove that the code is theirs. This might be a little difficult without providing the actual code to the Wine project and requiring any developer of the Wine project to taint him self by signing a NDA with Microsoft would probably not required by the court. So the reasonable cause of action would for Microsoft to release the code without a license that could taint us or pay for an independent 3rd party to review and establish this. 2. Require that Microsoft provide a patch to remove the offending code from the current CVS. Note that we also are a victim so requiring more would probably be considered unreasonable. Why should we pay for (in money or effort) somebody elses crime or legal liabillity against Microsoft. All in all I think the Judge would be rather annoyed that Microsoft didn't try to solve this problem without him. In short, while IANAL, if Microsoft (or somebody) feels that some code in the CVS is copyrighted by them we should simple require that. 1. Prove it to us, without any risk of taint, or to some independent 3rd party at their expense. 2. Provide a patch against the current CVS that removes the offending code preferable made by the same 3rd party as above at their expense. 3. Require that the 3rd party sign a statement under perjury that the patch removes the offending code and only the offending code. Remember we are also a victim under such an event and requiring more would probably not be look on favourable by the courts.

1 0

Proposed config file change
by Andreas Mohr July 21, 2001

July 21, 2001

Hi all, I've been thinking for a rather long while now that the config file has a rather poor format. Several settings are pretty misplaced, and it tends to get chaotic. Let me just suggest something different: [COMM\\ParallelPorts] "Lpt1" = "..." "ppdev_378" = "..." [COMM\\SerialPorts] [COMM\\RASAPI] [COMM\\TAPI] [COMM\\WININET] [COMM\\WINSOCK] [DLLs\\Overrides] [File\\Drive x] [File\\General] "Windows" = "..." "System" = "..." "Temp" = "..." "Path" = "..." "ShowDirSymlinks" = "..." [File\\Registry] "LoadGlobalRegistryFiles" = "Y" "LoadHomeRegistryFiles" = "Y" "LoadWindowsRegistryFiles" = "Y" "WritetoHomeRegistryFiles" = "Y" "SaveOnlyUpdatedKeys" = "Y" "Profile" = "c:\\windows\\Profiles\\Administrator" [Graphics] "GraphicsDriver" = "x11drv" "WineLook" = "Win95" [Graphics\\DirectX] [Graphics\\Fonts] ;See a couple of examples for russian users below "Resolution" = "96" "Default" = "-adobe-helvetica-" "DefaultFixed" = "fixed" "DefaultSerif" = "-adobe-times-" "DefaultSansSerif" = "-adobe-helvetica-" [Graphics\\OpenGL] [Graphics\\Printing\\afmdirs] [Graphics\\Printing\\Spooler] "FILE:" = "tmp.ps" "LPT1:" = "|lpr" "LPT2:" = "|gs -sDEVICE=bj200 -sOutputFile=/tmp/fred -q -" "LPT3:" = "/dev/lp3" [Graphics\\Screen\\ttydrv] ;"Drivers" = "tty" ;"XtermProg" = "nxterm" ;"InitialRows" = "25" ;"InitialColumns" = "80" ;"TerminalType" = "nxterm" [Graphics\\Screen\\x11drv] ... [Sound\\DSOUND] "EmulatedDriver" = "..." [Sound\\WinMM] "Drivers" = "wineoss.drv" "WaveMapper" = "msacm.drv" "MidiMapper" = "midimap.drv" [wine] "ShellLinker" = "wineshelllink" [wine\\Clipboard] "ClearAllSelections" = "0" "PersistentSelection" = "1" [wine\\Ports] ;"read" = "0x779,0x379,0x280-0x2a0" ; "write" = "0x779,0x379,0x280-0x2a0" [wine\\Spy] "Exclude" = "WM_SIZE;WM_TIMER;" This has the advantage that it has a very basic structure (COMM, DLLs, File, Sound, Wine), and you always know where to start searching. I haven't spent much thought on whether it's really "right" and, most importantly, extensible, though. Comments ? -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/

1 0

Re: glibc bug mmap/malloc
by Alexandre Julliard July 21, 2001

July 21, 2001

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > I mean, come on: why did they bother to implement malloc() at all > if the resulting architecture is THAT broken ? It's not broken, it just doesn't play well with programs like Wine that muck around with the process address space. But it's a perfectly reasonable (if not optimal) implementation for "normal" Unix apps. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1