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

Re: winapi update
by Alexandre Julliard July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > A full install is largely meaningless since the winapi tools are made > for work on a Wine source tree, so making them independant of such > a tree is largely meaningless. Agreed. > In short, please apply it, they facillitates using the > winapi tools alot and might make more people actually > use them. They don't hurt anything. The problem is if we make it part of the default make install all Wine distributions will include these non-functional (from the user POV) scripts, and I don't think this is a good idea. So I have applied it but it doesn't run by default; developers who want it should run make install in the tools/winapi directory. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

broken misc/version.c (patch 1.43 -> 1.44) WIN95 value in version16
by Ladislav Sladecek July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Two days ago a 16 bit application, which I use, started to complain about unknown windows version. After I rgressed to 1.43 of misc/version.c, everything was OK. I found the problem in the GetVersionInfo value that you changed at line 75 of the file. My windows 95 returns 0xC0000004 in WIN32 and 0x07005F03 in WIN16. You changed the 16bit value from 0x7005F03 to 0x7000304. Can you please check this? Do you have some docs? I think that we that we are both right; the value probably depends on longitude, altitude, and Windows language version. Mine iWindows 95 is Czech Edition, SR2. Regards Ladislav Sladecek

1 0

RE: winapi update
by Patrik Stridvall July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > I have resent winapi_install patch. > > > > While it probably that you didn't apply > > it because of lack of time I resend > > for your convinience. If not please > > explain. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are not actually installing > anything, only a script that needs the Wine source tree to work. That is a correct conclusion. > I don't really see the point. The point is that when you are in some sub directory of a wine tree, you can just write winapi_check or make_filter and whatever and it will call the correct version of the tool. Instead of having to type, if you are in dlls/winsock. ../../tools/winapi_check Sure you can currently do make winapi_check or make filter and adding winapi_{extract,fixup} is trivial but giving arguments through make is a little awkward. That why I wrote a few script to fix this and now when I have a tool (make_filter) that could possibly enjoy a wider use I decided to make a formalized "install" for them. > If you want to install something it should > be a complete installation that works without external files (not that > I suggest doing that for winapi_check, at least not by default). A full install is largely meaningless since the winapi tools are made for work on a Wine source tree, so making them independant of such a tree is largely meaningless. Well they actually are indendent of the specific tree they where install from. They do not reference to it at all. They use the current directory to find the real winapi tools in that tree. They will work equally well with any tree (of a later date than your hopefull application of the patch that is). They are as they are by design, not by mistake, and complete installation of them is almost completly meaningless. Sure there might be future winapi tools worthy of a complete install, a future tool for automatical generation of .spec files from any Winelib application, that we talked about some time ago, comes to mind, but I'm not there quite yet. I have begun to implement simple typedef parsing but it doesn't work 100% yet. In short, please apply it, they facillitates using the winapi tools alot and might make more people actually use them. They don't hurt anything.

1 0

Re: winapi update
by Alexandre Julliard July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > I have resent winapi_install patch. > > While it probably that you didn't apply > it because of lack of time I resend > for your convinience. If not please > explain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are not actually installing anything, only a script that needs the Wine source tree to work. I don't really see the point. If you want to install something it should be a complete installation that works without external files (not that I suggest doing that for winapi_check, at least not by default). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Possible printer driver bug
by Jukka Heinonen July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Wine compiled from CVS crashes since file "wine/dlls/gdi/driver.c" passes a NULL pointer to function CreateICA. The following patch stops crashing, but since I have no idea how Wine printer drivers work, this patch might be plain wrong. After this patch, Wine no longer crashes, but I haven't been able to test whether printing works or not. Index: wine/dlls/gdi/driver.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/gdi/driver.c,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.2 driver.c --- wine/dlls/gdi/driver.c 2001/07/28 00:18:02 1.2 +++ wine/dlls/gdi/driver.c 2001/07/29 14:10:18 @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ if(!DRIVER_GetDriverName( lpszDevice, buf, sizeof(buf) )) return -1; - if (!(hdc = CreateICA( buf, NULL, lpszPort, NULL ))) return -1; + if (!(hdc = CreateICA( buf, lpszDevice, lpszPort, NULL ))) return -1; if ((dc = DC_GetDCPtr( hdc ))) { -- Jukka Heinonen <http://www.iki.fi/jhei/>

2 1

Hi There
by Robert Laverick July 29, 2001

July 29, 2001

Hi, I'm new to wine and while I've been messing about with it I've not acctualy done anything significant. I'm mostly into Java but picked up some C recently doing some parallel comutational stuff as part of my Final year project as part of my degree. Now I'm officaly Unemployed as apposed to a Student I can give of my time freely. I'd love to get into this, if someone could give me a point at something that needs a good looking at then I'll start there. My biggest motivation is to get to understand this whole thing better and (if I'm luck) get Diablo II running so I don't have to reboot out of linux each time my Girlfriend comes round and demmands to kick my ass. :-) Well thanks in advance and I hope I can prove usefull. Rob PS anyone who want's to be nice enough to offer me a job DO IT NOW PLEASE I'M SKINT!

1 0

Wine Unreal and a strange old problem
by FT Rathore July 29, 2001

July 29, 2001

Hi I have been using wine to play Unreal for a long time, but it would always crash in the start when I play as root or when I have my /dos filsystem mounted rw. It would always blow my mind, but I would fail to catch it. (been happenning for years too). I copied the whole Unreal tree to my ext2 filesystem and tried with different file permissions. I came to reallize that wine will allways crash if the file Unreal.log in Unreal/System is writeable. If I make that file read only, wine works flawlessly and I can do everything including save/load games. I tried to debug it, but the clues were very strange. There is only one message I see before the crash: err:seh:EXC_DefaultHandling Exception frame is not in stack limits => unable to dispatch exception. Besides that there is not much different between the good and the bad traces. I am attaching last 2000 lines of "-debugmsg +all" with this message. Someone might be able to get some sense from the trace. Anything else I sould do? FT

1 0

Re: wnd lock tracing
by Alexandre Julliard July 29, 2001

July 29, 2001

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > Add a #define DBG_WNDLOCK in order to have reasonable wndlock debugging Please don't add #ifdefs. You should use a debug channel. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: -DSTRICT warning fixes
by Patrik Stridvall July 29, 2001

July 29, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Sure Win64 should use 64-bit pointers as handles that is > > without questions, but forcing it on Win32 on 64-bit > > is totally unnessary > > This may be the root of your misunderstanding: there is no such thing > as Win32 on 64-bit platforms. Wine (and Winelib) implement Win32 on > 32-bit platforms, and Win64 on a 64-bit platform. Well, actually Win32 does exist (or rather existed, it has been discontinue by Microsoft) on Alpha. But, never mind, it doesn't matter. The point is somebody has souce code for a Windows application and wishes that it will run on Alpha. He or she doesn't care whether Win32 on 64-bit exists or not he wished to port his application with as little effort as possible. He or she doesn't care what magic Winelib does as long as it works and he has to change the source as little as possible. > If you want to > compile your apps as Win32, you need a 32-bit compiler. Sure thats an idea, but doing that is a little awkard, no 32-bit compiler currently exists for 64-bit platforms AFAIK. While this might work, at least in theory, if you only call the Win32 API, how do you suggest calls to 64-bit Unix libraries should be handled? > Then you use > the same compiler to build Wine as a Win32 library, and everything > works fine. If you use a 64-bit compiler, some types (including > handles) become 64-bit, and you have to deal with it. Since you refuse to make it easier for the porter, sure he or she will have to deal with it, that is pretty obvious isn't it? The question is what can we do to make it easier for the porters. We can almost always say "We don't care, its your problem", so that is not an argument by itself. Sure we can't do the impossible, and some things takes to much effort, but still. > The only possible exception would be running existing Win32 binaries > on ia64. And I'm not even convinced it needs an exception, it's > probably easier to simply build a version of Wine with the 32-bit gcc > than to try to come up with a translation layer. Well, that is a future problem. I don't know exactly how to handle it either, but as you pointed out earlier since we need to convert 32-bit pointers to 64-bit pointers we might as well convert 32-bit handlers to 64-bit handlers the same way. Of course that doesn't mean that being able to compile Winelib with handle as 32-bit integers won't help, but I really can't say whether or not right now.

1 0

Re: -DSTRICT warning fixes
by Alexandre Julliard July 29, 2001

July 29, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Sure Win64 should use 64-bit pointers as handles that is > without questions, but forcing it on Win32 on 64-bit > is totally unnessary This may be the root of your misunderstanding: there is no such thing as Win32 on 64-bit platforms. Wine (and Winelib) implement Win32 on 32-bit platforms, and Win64 on a 64-bit platform. If you want to compile your apps as Win32, you need a 32-bit compiler. Then you use the same compiler to build Wine as a Win32 library, and everything works fine. If you use a 64-bit compiler, some types (including handles) become 64-bit, and you have to deal with it. The only possible exception would be running existing Win32 binaries on ia64. And I'm not even convinced it needs an exception, it's probably easier to simply build a version of Wine with the 32-bit gcc than to try to come up with a translation layer. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0