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

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed information be > stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the question is > how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that > we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? Sure we can, that's the easy part; the hard part is making it work for the normal entry points. And I'm not going to add anything to support stubs etc. until it's clear that we can do it for normal entry points in a way that I consider acceptable. > While we probably should not actually change the .c files to > look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity > that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations > that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the > "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime > for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all > the DLL:s functions are "implemented". Then fix winapi_check. I don't want to have to add a bunch of external declaration for C library functions, that's very ugly. So no, I'm not going to apply your patch. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: hello all
by Travis Michielsen July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

Hi all, After reading Brandon's message I was inspired to introduce myself to this list as well. Although I have been following wine for several months now, I have just recently started wine development (only 1 small patch so far :-( ). Currently I am focusing on learning the API before I persue patches that are significantly larger, but have started a todo list. I am an avid C/C++ programmer and have experimented with serveral other languages including Java(script), Pascal, Basic, etc. I have done allot of programming for Windows/DOS in the past but when I discovered linux about 2 years ago, I immediately switched OS's and began pursuing linux programming. I do, however, still run windows occasionally, when I have trouble running programs under wine, but I believe that someday (hopefully sooner rather than latter), we will be able to use linux (and wine) to run almost every program without thought. Anyways, Welcome Brandon, and Hello All. :) Travis Michielsen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

[PATCH] dde unicode warning
by Gerard Patel July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

ChangeLog: * dlls/user/dde/misc.c Fix unicode warning

1 0

[PATCH] Toolbar : image list can be changed after TB_SETIMAGELIST;
by Gerard Patel July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

The imagelist of a toolbar can be changed by the app after it has set it to the toolbar (using TB_SETIMAGELIST). In this case the bitmap number can be wrong, leading to some apps not displaying text correctly (although the bitmaps were still showing because of Wine code not really testing for bitmap number in this case). Fix for Winzip 8.0, replaces the preceding one (same problem) ChangeLog: * dlls/comctl32/toolbar.c Refresh bitmap count to take in account imagelist changes after TB_SETIMAGELIST

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > > redundant information if we can. > > If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl > script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the > *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. Well the *.api files (or at least the manual maintainance of them) will be eliminated some day. I will just have to implement parsing of the "typedefs" in the headers. However, note that I'm not suggesting that we change to automatic generation of spec files right now, but at some point in the future. What tool we should for it is a later problem. With the exception of which types maps to which "kinds" (long ptr str wstr) the tool will not nessarily be very complex and I'm not sure what the parsing of typedefs to find out will be very complex either. But I wont know until I try. What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed information be stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the question is how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? While I'm not entirely happy with your: /* ##spec## foo "@ forward bar(ptr str) BAZ.bar" */ solution it is the better that any ideas I have. Simplicity has its charm. :-) Then we could just, taking USER as example add /* ##spec## user "name user" */ /* ##spec## user "type win16" */ /* ##spec## user "heap 65520" */ /* ##spec## user "file user.exe" */ /* ##spec## user "owner user32" */ /* ##spec## user "rsrc resources/version16.res" */ /* ##spec## user "2 stub OldExitWindows" */ /* ##spec## user "3 stub EnableOEMLayer" */ /* ##spec## user "4 stub DisableOEMLayer" */ /* ... */ in a appropriate place in say dlls/user/user_main.c. The order that winapi_extract finds the directive is not important the .spec file format happends to make it possible to always get everything in the right order anyway. However this solves the header, the debug_channels, forwards and stubs problem and could be used to solve the remaining problems with "Exported external functions" but I would rather have it solved with my patch with that name, that you didn't apply when applying the other patches. So will accept such a solution? While we probably should not actually change the .c files to look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all the DLL:s functions are "implemented". > And it seems to me you are > finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) Well, considering that our developers have neglected the comments for many year and only changing the spec files that is not very suprising. That is the problem with having redundant information, most developers only change where it really count either out of ignorance or lack of time. > > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > > If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing > function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by > the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe > to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). Well, you also have implementing new functions. You have FooA and want to implement FooW for example. It is much easier and much more natural to be able to just cut and paste without having to change the spec files. I have seen many such errors detected by winapi_check over the years.

1 0

Handling X errors using exception handlers
by Lionel Ulmer July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

Hi all, When discussing with Ove yesterday on #WineHQ about the handling of X errors, he told me about an idea of his : using exceptions to handle X errors. This way, when we have to explicitely handle X errors (as we will need to do for XVidmode and XDGA2 due to some (stupidly done IMHO :-) ) security fixes in XFree 4.x), we could do that using exceptions. Before doing this 'properly' (ie change the X11 drv, update the XShm error mechanism, the debugger, ...), here is what I did for now : 1) I created a new Wine-private exception type in include/wine/exception.h : /* unhandled X error */ #define EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV 0x80000104 2) I created a new X error handler that is installed at X11DRV initialization : static int X11DRV_XErrorHandler(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *event) { EXCEPTION_RECORD rec; rec.ExceptionCode = EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV; rec.ExceptionFlags = 0; rec.ExceptionRecord = NULL; rec.ExceptionAddress = XGLErrorHandler; rec.NumberParameters = 4; rec.ExceptionInformation[0] = (DWORD)event->serial; rec.ExceptionInformation[1] = (DWORD)event->error_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[2] = (DWORD)event->request_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[3] = (DWORD)event->minor_code; RtlRaiseException(&rec); return 0; } 3) I changed the XVidMode detection code thus : /* handle only X errors */ static WINE_EXCEPTION_FILTER(xerror_handler) { switch (GetExceptionCode()) { case EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV: return EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER; default: return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH; } } (...) void X11DRV_XF86VM_Init(void) { (...) wine_tsx11_lock(); (...) __TRY { if (!XF86VidModeQueryVersion(gdi_display, &xf86vm_major, &xf86vm_minor)) { xf86vm_major = 0; } XSync(gdi_display, False); } __EXCEPT(xerror_handler) { xf86vm_major = 0; } __ENDTRY wine_tsx11_unlock(); if (xf86vm_major == 0) { TRACE("No XVidmode\n"); return; } (...) } So what do you all think of this ? Is this something that I should add to the whole Wine tree ? The only problem with that is that it would make debugging X errors a bit more difficult as we won't have the standard X error message in debug reports from users... Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/

1 0

cvs changes
by mdew July 14, 2001

July 14, 2001

i havent had any problems until i updated to the latest CVS.., what exactly changed to cause this to pop up? (Using mIRC etc) fixme:console:SetConsoleCtrlHandler (0x3000f330,0) - no error checking or testing yet

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by Mike McCormack July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Hey Lawson, thanks for sending Juno... i got it, but i haven't tried it yet... i thought i'd just keep patching a bit at a time until somebody complained :-) If anybody knows of any free win3.1 terminal programs, please tell me. Anyhow, this is my TODO list: * use SetCommState in SetCommState16 * save and restore m_stat using Get/SetCommState in OpenComm16 * use ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx instead of service thread * finally, move 16bit comm implementation to USER Mike > Good day! > > If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed > patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. > > Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered > filling in the junk to make a new account? > > Regards, > > Lawson ------------------------------------------ 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

Re: PATCH: createwindow small unicode prob
by Alexandre Julliard July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> writes: > Changelog: > WM_NCCREATE has a A/W struct, so check unicode flag for which call > to use. In what case did this cause a problem? The desktop window proc is Unicode-only, and the structure doesn't contain strings anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > redundant information if we can. If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. And it seems to me you are finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > > One of the major reasons of having automatically > > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > > store redundant information. The needed information > > is already in the C function declaration and storing > > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > > complicatated but it really isn't that important > > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. > > IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the > source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a > Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add > comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see > much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the > information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for > that matter). Well, the ordinal of each function and for that that matter which functions that should be exported must be specified somewhere. Currently winapi_extract takes this information from the comment lines looking like this in the nearest preceding comment: * Foo (BAR.@) All non-static functions with such preceding comment line(s) is considered exported using the name specified in the comment as the external name. Of course, I can take this information from anywhere, but for obvious reason I can't guess it. If the unmodified source contains Microsoft Visual C++ __declspec(dllexport) directives or the project has a Microsoft Export file (a .def file) I can generate a spec file. This is not supported yet, but is no particular problem supporting in itself. A little worse problem is that I currently doesn't extract the function "kinds" (long ptr double str wstr) from the source but use the tools/winapi_check/win{16,32}/*.api files to determine the "kinds". This is not a teoretical problem, however it might take some time to fix all the same. But after that winapi_extract will be able to take unmodified source if __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file exists. However I think we concentrate primarily on the Wine source. I think as far the it is concerned it will suffice to use comment lines like * Foo (BAR.@) to extract the normal entries for the spec files. The stubs and forwards need to have special handling but then so must it in the case of __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file as well. There is no problem for winapi_extract to support all the above either (except implementation time of course). > Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now > (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does > is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think > there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and > they are not going to change much. Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having redundant information if we can. In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed > debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should > go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping > program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up > the spec files. That is another thing that I have planned to do with winapi_extract. I don't have any good idea how this should look like yet. You (or somebody else) are welcome to write a specification on exactly what you want so I can fix the how when I have time.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > One of the major reasons of having automatically > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > store redundant information. The needed information > is already in the C function declaration and storing > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > complicatated but it really isn't that important > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for that matter). Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and they are not going to change much. Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up the spec files. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Good day! If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered filling in the junk to make a new account? Regards, Lawson ---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

hello all
by Brandon Kilgore July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

Hi everyone, Just letting you all know that there's a new listener out here, eager to pick up on what you're discussing. I'm only 17, so I'll be pretty much staying out of the way, but I love programming so hopefully you won't mind if I stick my hand up to ask a question or respond to someone every once in a while. Just so you can know a bit about me...I used to be a purely QBasic programmer in my "early" days, but a few years ago I began broadening my horizons, mostly with HTML and Visual Basic. For a long time I had wanted to learn C but never really got around to it, but a little over a year ago I finally sat down and started learning, and now its one of the only languages I ever use. Some other languages I currently program in (or would come back to me if need be :-) : C/C++/Visual C++ (Q)Basic/Visual Basic HTML Perl BF (there's an interesting language...) Java/JavaScript WISE InstallMaster scripting ;-) Anyways, I'll let you all get back to the important development discussions. I'll be talking to you... - Brandon

2 2

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Like: > > > > > /************************************************************* > ********** > > * strcpy (MSVCRT.@) > > */ > > #if 0 /* Suppress warnings */ > > extern char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src); > > #endif > > > > Perhaps we could do the same with atom functions and lstrcmpi? > > The #if 0 #endif isn't even needed for them I believe. > > That's quite ugly IMO. The #if 0 #endif or having to have a documentation comment at all? Anyway the #if 0 is not needed I thought it might be needed in some cases but it is not. I mistakingly believed it might be type conflicts but it can't be since any exported function must of course use the C library types otherwise you can't export them directly. If you are refering to the documentation comment, I can't really see why. All other functions have it and adding additional documentation might be a good idea in some cases as well. Furthermore the extern declaration makes it possible for the C compiler to check that the prototype is the same as the prototype in the included files. I spotted several error when doing the patch because of this. As hinted above, I have implemented a working solution that does what I have described above. See separate mail. > As long as we require comments, we might as > well put everything explicitly in the comment, something like: > > /* ##spec## msvcrt "@ cdecl strcpy(ptr str) strcpy" */ > > (we can probably come up with a better syntax, but you get the idea). > Then we can simply grep for '##spec##' and extract everything into the > spec file. We can do the same for forwards etc. (and in fact we could > do it for normal entry points as well). For forwards, stubs and other special cases, perhaps. I don't like it very much but it is acceptable. But we need not decide that now. I will think more about it and come back later with some kind of proposal that might or might not match yours. I'm not sure, we will see. For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. One of the major reasons of having automatically generated .spec files is to avoid having to store redundant information. The needed information is already in the C function declaration and storing in a comment as well brings us back to the current situation. Sure it makes that generator less complicatated but it really isn't that important as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. PS. For the record: I consider winapi_extract a prototype not something that nessary will finally use in "production". We might of course use it, but I would rather rewrite it so it becomes simpler and more reliable. Perhaps it shouldn't be in Perl but in C instead? Oh, well, that is a minor issue compared to how the information should be stored.

1 0

To strip or not to strip
by Jeremy White July 13, 2001

July 13, 2001

We've always built the CodeWeavers Wine RPM unstripped, in the theory that it made supporting Wine newbies easier. However, AFAICT from watching cemw, we never get into a situation where a newbie goes into winedbg; more often, they shift first to the CVS tip, and from there maybe to winedbg. So, it seems like shipping debug symbols may just be a waste of bandwidth. (Note, we build with all full logging enabled, and we'll never change that). However, before we go ahead and yank the debug info out of our RPM, I thought I'd post a note, and let someone tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Jer

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Like: > > /*********************************************************************** > * strcpy (MSVCRT.@) > */ > #if 0 /* Suppress warnings */ > extern char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src); > #endif > > Perhaps we could do the same with atom functions and lstrcmpi? > The #if 0 #endif isn't even needed for them I believe. That's quite ugly IMO. As long as we require comments, we might as well put everything explicitly in the comment, something like: /* ##spec## msvcrt "@ cdecl strcpy(ptr str) strcpy" */ (we can probably come up with a better syntax, but you get the idea). Then we can simply grep for '##spec##' and extract everything into the spec file. We can do the same for forwards etc. (and in fact we could do it for normal entry points as well). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

> > The problem is that if I say that the memory directory doesn't > > "belong" to dlls/user/user.spec winapi_{check,extract,fixup} will > > not find implementations for all functions, which will cause > > problems. > > > > For example how should winapi_extract know that I should > generate the line > > 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA > > when it generates the spec files? > > Well, it's a more general problem, namely that the spec files can > reference functions that are not implemented directly in the dll. > > You also have for instance: > > @ cdecl strcpy(ptr str) strcpy > > in MSVCRT, and strcpy is clearly not implemented there since it's in > the C library. So you cannot assume that only the functions contained > in the dll can be used in the spec files, it is legal for the spec > file to reference external functions. True. I didn't even thought of that particular problem. Functions like strcpy is currently suppressed by having it listed in tools/winapi_check/nativeapi.dat, but that is a little kludgy. [Thinking...] Well you could simply have an function documentation comment without a function implementation in some file that belongs to MSVCRT. Like: /*********************************************************************** * strcpy (MSVCRT.@) */ #if 0 /* Suppress warnings */ extern char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src); #endif Perhaps we could do the same with atom functions and lstrcmpi? The #if 0 #endif isn't even needed for them I believe. > > I think that we need to move the solution of this problem one step > > up the "ladder" and discuss the more general problem: > > How should we store the information needed to generate > > the spec files in the source, especially concerning > > the forwards and stubs? > > You'll need a file somewhere that specifies all the entries that > cannot be determined automatically from the source. You simply cannot > build a 100% correct spec file based only on the function comments. Yes. I have some ideas, but no really good one. My currently best suggestion is having a .spec.in file that approximately looks like the .spec files but supports configure like substitutions. foo.spec.in: ---8<--- name foo type win32 init @init@ rsrc foo.res import baz.dll @debug_channels@ 101 forward Bar BAZ.Bar 102 stub BarFoo @fixed@ @ forward Foo BAZ.Foo @ stub FooBar @unfixed@ ---8<--- And simply let winapi_extract or whatever simple substitute @init@, @debug_channels@, @fixed@ and @unfixed@ with what can be extracted from the source. > And you definitely do not want to need to parse KERNEL source files > (like the ones in memory/) to build the USER spec file. Of course. The question was whether the memory directory belongs to USER or not. I have now accepted that it does not.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > No, USER does not use the memory directory. It links directly to > > libkernel32.so because it needs some internal functions in there, > > Like the atom functions that are implemented in memory/atom.c I guess > you mean. Actually no, the atom functions are similar to lstrcmpi, they are exported from kernel so we don't need to link to libkernel32.so to get them (and they shouldn't have USER comments either). The real problem is the internal kernel functions called by user, things like THUNK_Alloc or LOCAL_Alloc. > The problem is that if I say that the memory directory doesn't > "belong" to dlls/user/user.spec winapi_{check,extract,fixup} will > not find implementations for all functions, which will cause > problems. > > For example how should winapi_extract know that I should generate the line > 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA > when it generates the spec files? Well, it's a more general problem, namely that the spec files can reference functions that are not implemented directly in the dll. You also have for instance: @ cdecl strcpy(ptr str) strcpy in MSVCRT, and strcpy is clearly not implemented there since it's in the C library. So you cannot assume that only the functions contained in the dll can be used in the spec files, it is legal for the spec file to reference external functions. > I think that we need to move the solution of this problem one step > up the "ladder" and discuss the more general problem: > How should we store the information needed to generate > the spec files in the source, especially concerning > the forwards and stubs? You'll need a file somewhere that specifies all the entries that cannot be determined automatically from the source. You simply cannot build a 100% correct spec file based only on the function comments. And you definitely do not want to need to parse KERNEL source files (like the ones in memory/) to build the USER spec file. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > PS. And yes, the added lstrcmpi (USER.471) in memory/string.c > > should really be there. Both KERNEL and USER uses the memory > > directory. > > No, USER does not use the memory directory. It links directly to > libkernel32.so because it needs some internal functions in there, Like the atom functions that are implemented in memory/atom.c I guess you mean. > but > that's a different problem. lstrcmpi is a purely KERNEL function, that > happens to be imported by USER (and by other dlls too), That might be so, but it is also _exported_ by USER: grep lstrcmpi dlls/user/user.spec 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA and lstrcmpiA is not implemented anyware else The same goes for the atom functions: grep Atom dlls/user/user.spec 268 pascal16 GlobalAddAtom(str) GlobalAddAtomA 269 pascal16 GlobalDeleteAtom(word) GlobalDeleteAtom 270 pascal16 GlobalFindAtom(str) GlobalFindAtomA 271 pascal16 GlobalGetAtomName(word ptr s_word) GlobalGetAtomNameA > so USER must > not be mentioned in the comment IMO. The problem is that if I say that the memory directory doesn't "belong" to dlls/user/user.spec winapi_{check,extract,fixup} will not find implementations for all functions, which will cause problems. For example how should winapi_extract know that I should generate the line 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA when it generates the spec files? Of course the automatic generation of spec files is not 100% complete most importantly handling of forwards and stubs is not supported. I think that we need to move the solution of this problem one step up the "ladder" and discuss the more general problem: How should we store the information needed to generate the spec files in the source, especially concerning the forwards and stubs? I will address this issue in a separate mail, but you are welcome to add comments specific to this problem in this thread, I'm not sure I feel to writing it today. I have been postponing the writing of mail for quite some time and I'm currenly beginning to get rather tired. PS. Why not as an interim solution simply add support for forward in the Win16 spec files so 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA becomes 471 forward lstrcmpi(str str) USER32.lstrcmpiA which winebuild until actual need simply interprets as 471 pascal16 lstrcmpi(str str) lstrcmpiA Hmm. Perhaps we should have forward16 and forward to separate the pascal16 and pascal cases? Anyway this gives winapi_{check,fixup} enough information to handle the situation where the memory directory doesn't "belong" to dlls/user/user.spec.

1 0

Re: New problems with the debugger
by Uwe Bonnes July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.com> writes: Alexandre> Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> WineDbg starting... file_set_error: No such process Can't attach >> process 8068d98: error 317 Alexandre> I don't see this here. Could you please run wineserver under Alexandre> gdb, put a breakpoint on the file_set_error message Alexandre> (server/file.c line 334), and send me the backtrace at this Alexandre> point? Thanks. Breakpoint 1, file_set_error () at file.c:334 334 default: perror("file_set_error"); set_error( ERROR_UNKNOWN /* FIXME */ ); break; (gdb) bt #0 file_set_error () at file.c:334 #1 0x804b1e5 in get_thread_context (thread=0x97fa210, flags=65537, context=0xbffff350) at context_i386.c:142 #2 0x804b567 in get_thread_single_step (thread=0x97fa210) at context_i386.c:481 #3 0x8051d2e in continue_thread (thread=0x97fa210) at ptrace.c:177 #4 0x8050e9f in resume_process (process=0x8068d98) at process.c:518 #5 0x804bfc6 in debugger_attach (process=0x8068d98, debugger=0x97fa778) at debugger.c:420 #6 0x804c278 in req_debug_process (req=0xbffff4d8) at debugger.c:540 #7 0x805669f in read_request (thread=0x97fa778) at request.c:168 #8 0x805922b in thread_poll_event (obj=0x97fa778, event=1) at thread.c:157 #9 0x8057642 in select_loop () at select.c:262 #10 0x804e5af in main (argc=1, argv=0xbffff6d4) at main.c:108 #11 0x40178baf in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 Perhaps to notice: I run 2.4.6 on a SMP machine, Suse 7.1 Hope this helps Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > PS. And yes, the added lstrcmpi (USER.471) in memory/string.c > should really be there. Both KERNEL and USER uses the memory > directory. No, USER does not use the memory directory. It links directly to libkernel32.so because it needs some internal functions in there, but that's a different problem. lstrcmpi is a purely KERNEL function, that happens to be imported by USER (and by other dlls too), so USER must not be mentioned in the comment IMO. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

New problems with the debugger
by Uwe Bonnes July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

Hallo, since the update yesterday evening ( and a fresh update recently), on a crash the debugger has problems like this one: 08067330:Call kernel32.UnhandledExceptionFilter(404e4b00) ret=7800f2b8 fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np FIXME:pthread_rwlock_rdlock FIXME:pthread_rwlock_unlock Could not stat /home/bon/ikda/vol2 (No such file or directory), ignoring drive Y: FIXME:pthread_rwlock_rdlock FIXME:pthread_rwlock_unlock Could not stat /home/bon/ikda/sys (No such file or directory), ignoring drive Z: WineDbg starting... file_set_error: No such process Can't attach process 8068d98: error 317 Beendet Is this known? Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

Re: The [Windows] section
by Alexandre Julliard July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

"Bill Medland" <medbi01(a)accpac.com> writes: > The answer, for those interested > > In Windows 95 a load of configuration information moved from win.ini (esp > the [windows] section) to the registry. Now (when the edits are added to > the cvs) information should come from the [windows] section of win.ini if > the winelook is WIN31 and from the registry in general otherwise, with the > Tweak.Layout overriding both. Actually I have hacked your patch a bit when committing it (hope you don't mind ;-), with the idea of phasing out the Tweak.Layout stuff. So now the values come from the registry for Win95, and from win.ini (plus some hard-coded values) for Win3.1. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: PATCH: internetgetconnectionstate
by Gerard Patel July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

At 11:37 PM 09/07/2001 +0200, you (Marcus Meissner) wrote: >Hi, > >QuickTimePlayer 5 is using InternetGetConnectedState to check whether to >download its 'homepage'. > >Just say we are connected, and on a LAN. > >Ciao, Marcus > >Changelog: > Have InternetGetConnectedState always return 'LAN connection'. Theoretically this could cause trouble when used with a computer having no connection to the Internet, as an app could think it can connect, try to do it, fail and terminate or display annoying messages. It's not really a strong objection, as most decent computers are connected to the Internet these days, but maybe a config option could be better ? Just a thought. Gerard

3 2