November 2002 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Dual boot solves everything?
by Fredrick P. Lackey Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

Gentlemen, First of all, thanks to everyone with your input so far. I've now been able to get IE v6.0 up and running as well as a few other less important applications. Which brings me to a few more questions. 1. Since it is possible to use native DLLs with applications, can one assume that on a dual boot machine with Win98 SE2 and Red Hat v8.0 that it would only be necessary to install the desired application under Windows, then add native DLLs to the Wine config file to get [almost] *any* Windows application to function? 2. Each time I launch a program, a black window appears that seems to make up the "shell" (for lack of a better term) for that instance of the application. This window is always somewhere around 800x600 pixels. Is there any way to not show this window and/or get the size to be something else? I am running in 1600x1200 resolution and only using half of the screen is frustrating. 3. Is there an easy way within Linux/Wine to determine what native DLLs the application should/could use? Thanx again, Fred Lackey Orlando, Florida

6 5

Progress report wine faq
by Tony Lambregts Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

Vincent Berone has provided me with a dsl that works on my system and I am able to build the html so that it looks like it should. link to html built from sgml: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lambregt/index.html link to original html: http://www.dssd.ca/wine/Wine-FAQ.html Please test this with your browser and let me know of any problems. We have already tested with Mozilla (1.0 and 1.0.1) and IE 5.5 -- Tony Lambregts

3 4

Fun Projects on Slashdot
by Dimitrie O. Paun Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

Hehe, It's hard to keep these things 'secret' :))) http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/11/17/1648220.shtml?tid=125 -- Dimi.

3 3

wine-devel@winehq.com
by Mark Hannessen Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> I know I sound like a broken record, but just so it's out there: > Visual Foxpro 5 and 6 IDE's DO run under Wine, BUT, left mouse clicks in > child windows are broken. I've compiled and run VFP apps under wine, > but it's a pain in the butt to go kybd only in a Visual IDE :P are you volontairing ? > Sorry not to answer your main questions, but some ideas on this ... > We use gcc, wxWindows and mingw. Not sure how much you _need_ .NET > but we migrated our (fairly complex) app from Visual C++/MFC to wxWindows > and it was definitely worth it. Also we can use gcc to cross-compile > from Linux for Windows, so basically although our software is currently used > exclusively on Windows, I can develop it all on Linux (obviously some > testing to be done on Windows as well, but basically it works). And it's all > free, open-source software. I'd recommend checking it out. this combined with mono might give you just enough to develop .NET progs under linux. Mark Hannessen

2 1

RE: vxdcall calling convention
by Patrik Stridvall Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:21:37PM +0100, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > Le lun 18/11/2002 à 02:51, Patrik Stridvall a écrit : > > > > > Corrects this line in winapi_check: > > > > > win32/device.c:544: kernel32: void > > > VxDCall(DWORD,CONTEXT86 *): calling > > > > > convention mismatch: cdecl != stdcall > > > > > > > > I'm not 100% sure this really is a bug. > > > > Don't trust winapi_check too much it is very ad hoc. :-) > > > > > > > > It might however be a bug but I never got around to test it > > > properly. > > > > > > > > So, have you verified that this really is correct? > > > > > > Well, kernel32.spec references them by "stdcall -register -i386". > > > Another API referenced the same way is CommonUnimpStub, and > > > in thunk.c, > > > it is declared as "void WINAPI". > > > > > > Is it sufficient checking? > > > > I'm not sure, it might be the other API(s) that are wrong > > or that VxDCall is a special case. That why I haven't dared > > changed anything. > > I think it needs to be WINAPI, the __wine_call_from_32_regs > assembler thunk > does not remove arguments from stack. Yes, I'm leaning in that direction as well the more I think about it. However, I don't think it is enough. It will work for the implemented VxDCall that pops the stack itself, however it will not work for unimplemented VxDCalls since they will not clean up the stack correctly AFAICS. Anyway, if so it has been wrong a long time (so long that I don't notice the warning from winapi_check any longer :-), so I wonder why it wasn't noticed by anybody else running an application using VxD calls.

2 1

RE: vxdcall calling convention
by Patrik Stridvall Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> Le lun 18/11/2002 à 02:51, Patrik Stridvall a écrit : > > > Corrects this line in winapi_check: > > > win32/device.c:544: kernel32: void > VxDCall(DWORD,CONTEXT86 *): calling > > > convention mismatch: cdecl != stdcall > > > > I'm not 100% sure this really is a bug. > > Don't trust winapi_check too much it is very ad hoc. :-) > > > > It might however be a bug but I never got around to test it > properly. > > > > So, have you verified that this really is correct? > > Well, kernel32.spec references them by "stdcall -register -i386". > Another API referenced the same way is CommonUnimpStub, and > in thunk.c, > it is declared as "void WINAPI". > > Is it sufficient checking? I'm not sure, it might be the other API(s) that are wrong or that VxDCall is a special case. That why I haven't dared changed anything. The problem with VxDCall is that is have multiple entries under different external names. ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 1 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall0(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 2 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall1(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 3 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall2(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 4 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall3(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 5 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall4(long) VxDCall /dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 6 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall5(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 7 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall6(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 8 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall7(long) VxDCall ./dlls/kernel/kernel32.spec: 9 stdcall -register -i386 VxDCall8(long) VxDCall Searching on the Internet reveals this page: http://www.mbs.spb.ru/kb/w32mbr.htm According to this page VxDCall[0-8] really should be stdcall. ---8<--- /* Kernel32 W32-caller prototypes */ DWORD WINAPI VxDCall0(DWORD service); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall1(DWORD service, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall2(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall3(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall4(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall5(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall6(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall7(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); DWORD WINAPI VxDCall8(DWORD service, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD); ---8<--- and this ---8<--- vxdcall.def LIBRARY KERNEL32 EXPORTS VxDCall0(a)0 @1 VxDCall1(a)8 @2 VxDCall2(a)12 @3 VxDCall3(a)16 @4 VxDCall4(a)20 @5 VxDCall5(a)24 @6 VxDCall6(a)28 @7 VxDCall7(a)32 @8 VxDCall8(a)36 @9 ---8<--- However something with VxDCall is wrong nether the less. WINAPI functions (read: __stdcall) functions expects that the callee cleans up the argument stack and the number of arguments is different depending on which function is called. Looking at VxDCall (and what it calls) in win32/device.c I see that the implemented VxDCall pops the stack. However the unimplemented VxDCalls doesn't even though they might have gotten some arguments. This means AFAICS that VxDCall corrupts the stack in such cases... So I'm pretty convinced that something is wrong however I don't think you patch is the solution to the problem. It might possible be part of a solution though... Any suggestions?

2 1

RE: vxdcall calling convention
by Patrik Stridvall Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> Corrects this line in winapi_check: > win32/device.c:544: kernel32: void VxDCall(DWORD,CONTEXT86 *): calling > convention mismatch: cdecl != stdcall I'm not 100% sure this really is a bug. Don't trust winapi_check too much it is very ad hoc. :-) It might however be a bug but I never got around to test it properly. So, have you verified that this really is correct?

2 1

Re: Wine with .NET?
by Mark Hannessen Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> Ladies and Gentlemen, > > I am a Microsoft developer and currently pushing the capabilities of the > .NET Framework. On that same note, I am considering moving my laptop to > some version of Linux (either Solaris v8.0 or Red Hat). I assumed that > I would need to use VMWare or some equivalent to continue using Visual > Studio .NET. Can anyone give me some advice? > > Many thanx, > Fred Lackey > Orlando, Florida have you already tryd wine to run visual studio .NET ? in theory it is possible but i don't think anyone has ever tryd. ( and it will likely not work yet, feel free to send patches ) if you want to port visual studio .NET to linux using wine you should use winemaker. Mark Hannessen

7 8

RE: Nameless struct problem
by Patrik Stridvall Nov. 18, 2002

Nov. 18, 2002

> Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > >I had to use the following hack to allow this > >bit to go through my g++ compiler. > > > >I'm using RedHat 8.0, so this gives me: > > > >[dimi(a)dimi wine.src]$ g++ --version > >g++ (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7) > >Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > >This is free software; see the source for copying > conditions. There is NO > >warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A > PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > > Glad you included the warranty bit :-) > > > > >Any ideas what's wrong here, and how it can be fixed? > > > > > Not particularly, but I know I've seen other examples of g++ > being more > strict / particular > about structs than gcc. What error do you get? You could try > -E for the > preprocessor > output and search through it for DUMMYSTRUCTNAME ; it could > be being defined > earlier on or somewhere else in a way that confuses it here... DUMMYSTRUCT is defined as nothing if the compiler supports nameless structs. GNU C++ was mistakenly believed by me to support nameless structs. I didn't check however, I have check now and it seem like no version of GNU C++ does. :-( Not that it really needs to support it since you could get the same effect with "dummy" structs/classes and inheritence, but then I really can't see any particular reason not to support it since makes at least as much sense (if not more) in C++ to have unnamed structs as in C... Anyway, there is a patch in wine-patches that fixes the problem and since it as I said is always possible to "fake it" in C++ there is no great need to ask the GNU C++ developers the fix the problem either...

1 0

Patch for bug 1150
by Andrew John Hughes Nov. 17, 2002

Nov. 17, 2002

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This patch should resolve bug 1150, compiling commdlg with -DSTRICT. Hope this is okay - this is my first time hacking on Wine. The patch is also attached to the bug. - -- Andrew :-) Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE92DtTSE/kMce1ABARAgXdAJ0RKUv3appMGjMo1+TgyhyujuMzGwCdHhNc dYlWgrnc+lCHhrdfM2cwYXY= =hum9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0