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

Re: Documenting functions

by Andreas Mohr

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 04:33:06PM +0000, Bill Medland wrote: > Getting back to what we are and are not allowed to do.. > > Suppose I am looking at a low-level function that I believe is only > 75%-complete (the most important 75% of course and no disrespect meant to > those who have got it that far). > > One of the problems with it is it is not totally clear EXACTLY what the > function should do in some of its more esoteric modes. > > To me the first task is to define what it should do and that should be part > of the documentation of the function. IMNSHO full documentation should *not* be included in the Wine tree. Instead, we should rely on MSDN documented stuff wherever possible and only explain quirks/undocumented behaviour/whatever isn't documented. Having full docu inside the source tree simply bloats it too much IMHO. Not to mention that none, zero, zilch of the planned undertakings in that direction have actually taken off so far. Docu in general is fine, but duplicated function docu in source tree ? Avoid as much as possible, I think. > The particular function currently does not have any true documentation > within the code; the best documentation of what it does is the code itself, > and the best documentation of what it should do is the MSDN description of > the function. If there's no additional "Wine" information about this function, then this is perfectly reasonable IMHO (see above). I'd like to see at most: function header with comment above with short description of i/o, additional statements about undocumented/special behaviour. -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/

July 31, 2001

Re: Patch to fix the Linux 2.2 joysitck interface

by Alexandre Julliard

David Hagood <wowbagger(a)sktc.net> writes: > To be done: the file descriptor is never closed under normal > circumstances - this might be a problem if a Wine app is opened and > accesses the stick, as the file descriptor will be open until that > process terminates. If this is viewed as a problem, it would be a simple > matter to add a device close function to the Wine driver to close the FD. Shouldn't this be done in the driver DRV_OPEN/DRV_CLOSE calls then? Any joystick experts out there? (BTW please use diff -u to generate patches, the default diff format is unreadable). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

July 31, 2001

Documenting functions

by Bill Medland

Getting back to what we are and are not allowed to do.. Suppose I am looking at a low-level function that I believe is only 75%-complete (the most important 75% of course and no disrespect meant to those who have got it that far). One of the problems with it is it is not totally clear EXACTLY what the function should do in some of its more esoteric modes. To me the first task is to define what it should do and that should be part of the documentation of the function. The particular function currently does not have any true documentation within the code; the best documentation of what it does is the code itself, and the best documentation of what it should do is the MSDN description of the function. 1. Should the function be completely defined in its header in the source code (which will probably make the header twice as large as the function) or should the details be put somewhere else. 2. Are we walking into copyright danger if the Wine documentation of the function is clearly based on the MSDN documentation, even if we acknowledge that. 3. Are we interested in that level of documentation? Bill

July 31, 2001

Re: RFC: Patch for making GrabPointer work

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Alexandre Julliard" <julliard(a)winehq.com> wrote: > Jukka Heinonen <jhei(a)iki.fi> writes: > > > Storing old windows procedure in struct x11drv_win_data > > would remove the worst race, but unless window > > procedure update is atomic, it would not remove > > all races. > > Since you have the window locked when changing the wnd proc the update > will be atomic. The only problem I see is that your wnd proc might get > called to process some other message, but you can solve this by having > it chain to the previous wnd proc for all messages except the special > one. And it would be much better to not hardcode 0x7777 as the special message value, but use RegisterWindowMessage instead. -- Dmitry.

July 31, 2001

Re: RFC: Patch for making GrabPointer work

by Alexandre Julliard

Jukka Heinonen <jhei(a)iki.fi> writes: > Storing old windows procedure in struct x11drv_win_data > would remove the worst race, but unless window > procedure update is atomic, it would not remove > all races. Since you have the window locked when changing the wnd proc the update will be atomic. The only problem I see is that your wnd proc might get called to process some other message, but you can solve this by having it chain to the previous wnd proc for all messages except the special one. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

July 31, 2001

Re: (no subject)

by Alexandre Julliard

Ladislav Sladecek <lsla(a)post.cz> writes: > If you run the binary in the Windows, you will see two properly sized > red rectangles on a white background. If you run the same binary in > Wine, you will see only one large red child but no white parent > background. If either the CS_PARENTDC or WS_CLIPSIBLINGS gets removed > from my example, both Windows and Wine give identical results. Yes, there were a number of problems with the flags handling in GetDCEx. I think the behavior with the current CVS should now be correct in all cases; please give it a try. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

July 31, 2001

Re: Prevent excessive clipping in SysListView32

by Bill Medland

Ulrich Weigand <weigand(a)immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote in article <200107301823.UAA01150(a)faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>... > > Bill Medland wrote: > > > Ulrich Weigand <weigand(a)immd1.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote in article > > <200107262124.XAA25786(a)faui11.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>... > > > No, 'inline' must not change the semantics of the routine in any way, > > > including static variables. > > > > > > If the app behaves differently when 'perfect_graphics' is inlined, this > > > is a compiler bug. Which compiler version are you using? > > > > Excuse my ignorance. rpm says it is 2.96-81. How do I ask gcc what > > version IT thinks it is? > > (Running on RH7.1; how do I get the kernel version? rpm says 2.4.2-2) > > gcc 2.96 is the version RedHat is currently using; it is not an > 'official' version supported by the gcc folks ... > > However, RedHat has been fixing quite a bunch of bugs in their > compiler; it might be worthwhile to check whether this inlining > bug is fixed in the most recent RedHat update. (Check the RPM > sublevel to find out whether you have the most recent update, > that's the -81 in your case. AFAIK, bugfix updates can be > downloaded from the RedHat FTP site ...) > > Bye, > Ulrich Thanks; I'll try that when I have a moment. Bill

July 30, 2001

Re: Relocatoion and ExceptionFilter problem?

by EriK W

"Francois Gouget" <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0107301118510.11941-100000(a)amboise.dolphin... > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, EriK W wrote: > > > Now I finally made a wine , :) > > But I can't get any program to excute so far, mostly It is like > > > > bash-2.03# wine --winver win95 sol.exe > > err:seh:UnhandledExceptionFilter Couldn't start debugger (debugger/winedbg > > 134639312 24) > > (2) > > Read the Wine Developers Guide on how to set up winedbg or another debugger > > What we need are the lines that come before. See: > http://wine.codeweavers.com/docs/wine-user/bugs.shtml#BUG-REPORTING > > > > bash-2.03# wine --winver win98 icq2000b.exe > > err:win32:do_relocations Standard load address for a Win32 program not > > available - patched kernel ? > > err:win32:do_relocations FATAL: Need to relocate > > F:\export\home\ericw\system\icq2000b.exe, but no relocation records present > > (stripped during link). Try to run that file directly ! > > wine: can't exec 'icq2000b.exe': error=21 > > Many windows executables must be loaded at a specific address. > Unfortunately it seems that on your system this address is already in > use so that we cannot load the executable there. In the past this > happened regularly because we were loading all programs in a single > address space. So after loading the first program we were unable to load > any other program at that same address. Hence the suggestion to "Try to > run that file directly !" in the error message. But this is all a thing > of the past as now each application is loaded in its own address space. > So there must be something else using the address that Wine wants. > It's strange because I don't remember people having this problem on > Solaris before. What you can do is run Wine in gdb and then type 'info > sharedlibrary' to get a map of the process memory and see what is using > the address Wine needs. So you will also need to fid out where Wine > is trying to load the exe. You can probably get this info by looking at > the loader source, activating the relevant debug channels, or running > dumpbin (comes with VC++) on the app. Could it be related to xpm? I have this info when I first time config wine Redhat : xpm xpm-devel Caldera OpenLinux : xpm xpm-devel xpm-devel-static SuSE : xpm Debian/Corel Linux: xpm4g xpm4g-dev Or get the sources from ftp.x.org and all its mirror sites from the directory /contrib/libraries. I got the source and compiled xpm3.4k(With couple warnings), after installation wine still can't find xpm.h, because it was installed to /usr/openwin/share/include/X11/X11/xpm.h, so I eventually copied it to /usr/openwin/share/include/X11/xpm.h to make it work for wine. I also tried to use something like ./configure --x-includes=/usr/openwin/share/include/X11:/usr/openwin/share/i nclude/X11/X11 but wine couldn't find the xpm.h in this way. > > -- > Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ > Hiroshima '45 - Czernobyl '86 - Windows '95 > > > > >

July 30, 2001

RE: Small OpenGL patch

by Patrik Stridvall

> It also puts the 'make_opengl' script in line with the latest > modification > to the spec file. It also changes the OPENGL32.@ to OPENGL.@ > as per Patrik's > modifications in 'make_opengl'. Arrgghhh! I just saw that I didn't do the same change in the script as in the .c files (I didn't run the script, since it worked badly last time I tried with my OpenGL files). Braino. :-( It should of course be OPENGL32.@ not OPENGL.(a). The .c files was correct as they were. Sorry to cause you problems but can you fix the script and rerun on your OpenGL files and resubmit. > PS: god I hate Perl... I may well rewrite 'make_opengl' in > Python one of > these days :-) Whats wrong with Perl? I write applications sometimes in Perl and sometimes in Python, and I like them both and a dislike somethings about each language as well. Of course Perl is a little more difficult to learn but still. PS. You will se one of the advantages of Perl if you add use strict; at the top of the script. Of course after that you will have to declare all variable to it keeps the number of bugs down.

July 30, 2001

RE: winapi update

by Patrik Stridvall

> > 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. That is true. > 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. Ah, of course. Good idea. Thanks. This brings to mind the fact that three different kinds of "users": 1. Ordinary users 2. Wine/Winelib developers 3. Winelib application developers that need different kinds of tools installed. Not that I have any good solution to the problem. And not something that really is a problem either. Is was just something that occured to me. Oh well. Never mind.

July 30, 2001