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

Some questions about TB_REPLACEBITMAP

by Marco Bizzarri

Hi all. I'm trying to implement the TB_REPLACEBITMAP message in the comctrl32, and I would like to have some advice about the ImageList structure. The TB_REPLACEBITMAP provides (via the hInst, nID pair) the handle to the old bitmap and the handle to the new bitmap, as well as the number of button in the new bitmap. I think I could use the ImageList_Replace to actually replace the bitmaps. However, the ImageList_Replace function requires a number, which is the first bitmap to be replaced. How can I retrieve this information? For what I can see, once a bitmap has been added to the imagelist, no information about is is stored. I'm doing some tests, using a value (like 0) as the bitmap index, but this is of little help, of course. Any help will be appreciated. Bye Marco

Aug. 3, 2001

Re: Switching threads in winedbg

by eric pouech

Francois Gouget wrote: > > Is it possible to switch threads in winedbg? > I can use 'walk thread' to see a list of the threads of my > application but I could not find how to get a backtrace of one of these > other threads. It's not in the Wine Developper's Guide and I could not > find it from the source. this is not currently supported. but it seems feasible to extend the bt function with something like bt threadID. I'll have a look at it. A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

Aug. 3, 2001

Re: Dose wine people hate Solaris?

by eric pouech

> gcc -c -I. -I. -I../include -I../include -g -O2 -Wall -mpreferred-stack-bou > ndary=2 -fPIC -DSTRICT -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/openwin/include -o stabs.o > stabs.c > stabs.c:1271: warning: `struct r_debug' declared inside parameter list > stabs.c:1271: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, > which is probably not what you want. > stabs.c: In function `DEBUG_WalkList': > stabs.c:1274: storage size of `lm' isn't known > stabs.c:1284: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type > stabs.c:1274: warning: unused variable `lm' > stabs.c:1273: warning: `lm_addr' might be used uninitialized in this > function > stabs.c: In function `DEBUG_RescanElf': > stabs.c:1302: storage size of `dbg_hdr' isn't known > stabs.c:1309: `RT_CONSISTENT' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1309: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > stabs.c:1309: for each function it appears in.) > stabs.c:1313: `RT_ADD' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1315: `RT_DELETE' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1310: warning: unreachable code at beginning of switch statement > stabs.c:1302: warning: unused variable `dbg_hdr' > stabs.c: In function `DEBUG_ReadExecutableDbgInfo': > stabs.c:1324: `Elf32_Dyn' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1324: parse error before `dyn' > stabs.c:1325: storage size of `dbg_hdr' isn't known > stabs.c:1336: `dyn' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1339: `DT_DEBUG' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1339: `DT_NULL' undeclared (first use in this function) > stabs.c:1325: warning: unused variable `dbg_hdr' > make[1]: *** [stabs.o] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/export/home/system/wine-20010629/debugger' > make: *** [debugger/winedbg] Error 2 > > Compilation failed, aborting install. > > Any idea? this is due to the differences in ELF symbol loading between Linux/BSD and Solaris. This has to be fixed, some day. One simple fix would be to turn off manually the ELF definition at the top of the debugger/stabs.c file. If you're still around in the next day, I may send you some fixes to test if they work on Solaris (this is the part to be removed) #if defined(__svr4__) || defined(__sun) #define __ELF__ #endif A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

Aug. 3, 2001

Re: CS_PARENTDC with WS_CLIPSIBLINGS

by Ladislav Sladecek

Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > 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. Thank you for the fix. The example works fine but the original app ( 16 bit _prowin.exe from Progress RDBMS] ceased to work at all. After the menu is drawn, the application stops responding and complains about some illegal string operations and then about unknown driver ,, in GetDCA. err:string:lstrcpyA (0x40a2e75e, (nil)): page fault occurred ! Caused by bug ? err:dc:CreateDCA no driver found for ,, device:,, err:dc:CreateDCA no driver found for ,, device:,, err:dc:CreateDCA no driver found for ,, device:,, err:dc:CreateDCA no driver found for ,, device:,, I tried also --debugmsg +all; several houndreds lines of the trace are attached. I do not know if the problem is somewhat connected with your fix or is created by some other patch. Ladislav Sladecek

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Documenting functions

by Alexandre Julliard

"Bill Medland" <medbi01(a)accpac.com> writes: > Ay, there's the rub. It isn't our function. It';s Microsoft's function. > Now was it Holub or McConnell that complains about functions having weird > behaviour on certain inputs. IMO Microsoft functions need less documentation than internal ones, since there is MSDN and other countless books about Windows. You can assume that people reading your code already know what the various APIs are supposed to do. > The biggest problem, I believe, is the functions that take flags. Bear in > mind that a single DWORD argument used for flags is equivalent to up to 32 > boolean arguments. Documenting the relationship between those is a pain > but it needs to be done if we expect compatibility. This is clearly something that is best documented with code, not with text. You may need pages of text to describe the flags behavior in English, while with code it's usually only a few lines, plus a few comments here and there. This doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing to also have the full description in English; but in a separate document, not in the code. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Prevent excessive clipping in SysListView32

by Bill Medland

Bill Medland <medbi01(a)accpac.com> wrote in article <01c1194f$025f5f00$6f0c10ac(a)medbi01>... > 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. Well, I found a moment. The problem is still there with 2.96-85 which is what is currently available from RedHat. Maybe sometime I'll take a look at the difference in the generated assembler code, unless someone else is interested. Bill

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Documenting functions

by Alexandre Julliard

Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > I would say that I would rather have 100% of the effort a > particular developer *wants* to put in, rather than only > have his/her coding efforts. Absolutely; I'm not going to discourage anybody from writing doc if they feel like it. But I don't want anyone to feel somehow obliged to spend time on the doc if they'd rather be writing code, which I expect is the case with most developers... > However, I think that there should be a standard function > header, with a standard place to put notes and comments > in general about a function. I don't see a need to standardize anything. If you want to add a comment before a function just do it, there is no need for a standard format, plain text works just as well. > I have been trained, and I suspect that many of us have > been trained, to look at a function header for general > tips and tricks before diving into the code. I know > this is sacriledge to you, Alexandre, but there are some > of us who like to quickly look at a function, rather than > always reading the code to understand it completely. I think you misunderstand my position; I'm not opposed to having a comment at the start of the function explaining the general goal and the non-obvious things going on. But if you need more than a couple of paragraphs to do this, then either there are too many non-obvious things going on in your function, or you are wasting space explaining the obvious. I do strongly think that the goal should be to write code that doesn't require documentation in order to be understood. Of course adding a small amount of comments is a good idea; but when you start having more lines of documentation than lines of code, something is very wrong IMO. But this is mainly a matter of personal taste, and except in extreme cases I'm not going to reject code because it has too much (or not enough) documentation. It may happen that some of your beloved horizontal lines get lost during the cvs commit though ;-) -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Documenting functions

by Bill Medland

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.com> wrote in article <87zo9iwdnt.fsf(a)mail.wine.dyndns.org>... > Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > > > I would say that I would rather have 100% of the effort a > > particular developer *wants* to put in, rather than only > > have his/her coding efforts. > > Absolutely; I'm not going to discourage anybody from writing doc if > they feel like it. But I don't want anyone to feel somehow obliged to > spend time on the doc if they'd rather be writing code, which I expect > is the case with most developers... > > > However, I think that there should be a standard function > > header, with a standard place to put notes and comments > > in general about a function. > > I don't see a need to standardize anything. If you want to add a > comment before a function just do it, there is no need for a standard > format, plain text works just as well. > > > I have been trained, and I suspect that many of us have > > been trained, to look at a function header for general > > tips and tricks before diving into the code. I know > > this is sacriledge to you, Alexandre, but there are some > > of us who like to quickly look at a function, rather than > > always reading the code to understand it completely. > > I think you misunderstand my position; I'm not opposed to having a > comment at the start of the function explaining the general goal and > the non-obvious things going on. But if you need more than a couple of > paragraphs to do this, then either there are too many non-obvious > things going on in your function, or you are wasting space explaining > the obvious. Ay, there's the rub. It isn't our function. It';s Microsoft's function. Now was it Holub or McConnell that complains about functions having weird behaviour on certain inputs. The biggest problem, I believe, is the functions that take flags. Bear in mind that a single DWORD argument used for flags is equivalent to up to 32 boolean arguments. Documenting the relationship between those is a pain but it needs to be done if we expect compatibility. The next worst is handles or pointers to complex structures. What aspects of the object are relevant? And on the subject of non-obvious..The usual claim is 1. A comment should not state the obvious 2. If the converse of a statement in a comment is obvious then don't bother with it. In my experience these are both true but with provisos. 1 What is obvious to you today is probably not going to be obvious to you in 6 months 2. What is obvious to you is possibly not obvious to everyone else 3. The converse of a statement may be obvious to you. It may also be obvious to someone else. The question is "is it the same for both people" > > I do strongly think that the goal should be to write code that doesn't > require documentation in order to be understood. Of course adding a > small amount of comments is a good idea; but when you start having > more lines of documentation than lines of code, something is very > wrong IMO. And this is where I started getting overjoyed by the capabilities of SGML and the like. I agree wholeheartedly that too much documentation is a bad thing. Which is why I think there is a need for documentation outside the code, epecially in a networked shape (e.g. html/sgml) that can be referenced. > > But this is mainly a matter of personal taste, and except in extreme > cases I'm not going to reject code because it has too much (or not > enough) documentation. It may happen that some of your beloved > horizontal lines get lost during the cvs commit though ;-) > Bill

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Dont allow SetSelectorBase to change into an kernel region

by Alexandre Julliard

Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: > If I only allow to set the selector base when (selector base + selector > limit) is smaller than 0x8000000, the application goes on and lets me read > an eprom plugged into the Galep3 Programmer. Is the appended fix a right > acceptable? No, it's legal to have selectors covering the entire address space. I'm afraid there is no good solution to this kind of problem. What does the app do under NT or with -winver nt40? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

Aug. 2, 2001

Re: Documenting functions

by Jeremy White

[Resend due to exim crash; thanks Ove] >> I'd much rather have developers spend their time writing code. Making >> them duplicate the whole MSDN documentation would be a huge waste of >> their time. Our resources are not infinite, and it's much more useful >> to have 100% API coverage with no docs at all than 50% coverage and >> tons of docs. I think this is a dangerous attitude to take. I think that you cannot (and should not) attempt to force volunteer developers to add documentation to code. However, there are some few of us, who don't feel that the job is satisfactorily done until the documentation reflects important things that we've learned. I would say that I would rather have 100% of the effort a particular developer *wants* to put in, rather than only have his/her coding efforts. If I, like Bill, spend 24 hours ripping my hair out to learn some oddball things, I want a place to put those things. I want someone else (or an older version of me) to have a chance to not have to learn those things the hard way. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that we shouldn't try to replicate MSDN. I'm not even sure we should provide minimal documentation like parameter lists and return values. Further, I agree that where it makes sense, the best place for comments is inline with the relevant code. However, I think that there should be a standard function header, with a standard place to put notes and comments in general about a function. I have been trained, and I suspect that many of us have been trained, to look at a function header for general tips and tricks before diving into the code. I know this is sacriledge to you, Alexandre, but there are some of us who like to quickly look at a function, rather than always reading the code to understand it completely. <in joke> Finally, I think all the code would be dramatically improved, in fact, I bet we'd be at Wine 1.0 by now, if there were nice big horizontal separator lines everywhere. </in joke>

Aug. 2, 2001