July 2003 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by Duane Clark

Duane Clark wrote: > > Hmm, attached is what that looks like for me. So I don't know why it > looks bad to you. Oops, sorry. I was using a native control there. I do see the same thing as you.

July 29, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by Duane Clark

BiGgUn wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently working on a patch about trackbar sizes fixes. The main goal > of this patch is to get rid off magic values and provide a more generic > approach of trackbar computation. > Some test cases have shown for example that thumb length doesn't depend on > client rect fields... Ah, I suspected as much.

July 29, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by Duane Clark

Mike Hearn wrote: > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 05:19, Duane Clark wrote: > >>I have done quite a bit of comparison testing with ControlSpy on Wine >>and Win2K, so these changes should be accurate. Mainly done to fix >>earthquake (which was completely broken). >> >>Changelog: >> Fix the size/position of the thumb/channel/tics to match Win. > > > There's clearly something strange going on here we don't fully > understand - this patch breaks Internet Explorer again. See attached > screenshot. Builtin after this patch is on the left, native (98) is in > the middle, CVS wine is on the right. Hmm, attached is what that looks like for me. So I don't know why it looks bad to you. > Horizontal trackbars are still OK, though with this patch the thumb is > bigger than native 98. I didn't bother with a screenshot of that since > it still looks OK. One part of the code I did not test is the function TRACKBAR_InitializeThumb(), which sets the initial thumb length. My confidence in that part is not very good, since it doesn't make sense to have different calculations for the horizontal and vertical bars. So if someone were to do some simple testing to verify/correct that function, it would be a good thing. All of the rest of the patch sets the rest of the dimensions of the control based on the length of the thumb and the size of the window, which is how Windows does it. That part I tested extensively, and am very confident is correct.

July 29, 2003

Re: WineHQ website (lostwages) url changes

by Jeremy Newman

On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 22:02, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On July 28, 2003 08:04 pm, Jeremy Newman wrote: > > NOTE to template authors, if you want to put a relative link in the site > > from now on, use {$root} to have the site put the correct path in for > > you. For example, <a href="{$root}/site/about">About Wine</a>. This also > > works for images: <img src="{$root}/images/foo.jpg"> > > And what's wrong with just <a href="/site/about">About Wine</a> ? That works for the current site, but it will break on my testing machine where the site runs under another dir: /devel/site/about. Also, if someone wants to mirror the site, they may not put it at the root as well. I always try to use relative links for that purpose.

July 29, 2003

Re: Profiling wine

by Jeremy White

> How about giving oprofile a spin ? > > It is very good at pinpointing runtime hotspots. I just wanted to give > a suggestion on how to get going with profiling right now without the > need to wait for wineprofile functionality. I'm told (and have been persuaded of this), that Wine's internal structures preclue a 'normal' profiler from working properly, hence the need for a Wine specific one. I know we toyed with adapting gprof to Wine semantics, but decided, in the end, that was too hard and not worth it. >> >> Yup, found it, but looking through the code it seems Mikes initial >> evaluation (i missed bits and it doesn't work) is accurate. Is Charles >> around? If so it'd be good to get this patch into WineHQ, more and more >> bugs these days seem to be along the lines of "wine is too slow". I also >> have some questions, like what exactly WINE_NO_PROFILE does (it's >> defined to nothing....) charles spam hunters should not know to add an at codeweavers.com. Cheers, Jeremy

July 29, 2003

Re: Profiling wine

by Lars Segerlund

How about giving oprofile a spin ? It is very good at pinpointing runtime hotspots. I just wanted to give a suggestion on how to get going with profiling right now without the need to wait for wineprofile functionality. / Lars Segerlund. Mike Hearn wrote: > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 03:47, Jeremy White wrote: > >>But if you look through the archives (I think Mike mailed it in), >>you should find it. > > > Yup, found it, but looking through the code it seems Mikes initial > evaluation (i missed bits and it doesn't work) is accurate. Is Charles > around? If so it'd be good to get this patch into WineHQ, more and more > bugs these days seem to be along the lines of "wine is too slow". I also > have some questions, like what exactly WINE_NO_PROFILE does (it's > defined to nothing....) > > thanks -mike >

July 29, 2003

Re: Profiling wine

by Mike Hearn

On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 03:47, Jeremy White wrote: > But if you look through the archives (I think Mike mailed it in), > you should find it. Yup, found it, but looking through the code it seems Mikes initial evaluation (i missed bits and it doesn't work) is accurate. Is Charles around? If so it'd be good to get this patch into WineHQ, more and more bugs these days seem to be along the lines of "wine is too slow". I also have some questions, like what exactly WINE_NO_PROFILE does (it's defined to nothing....) thanks -mike -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

July 29, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by Mike Hearn

Hi Maxime, could you try backing out this patch : http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-cvs/2003/06/0142.html and see if that makes emule work again? If so then clearly my patch caused a regression (I only tested against Internet Explorer). On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:30, maxime.bellenge(a)laposte.net wrote: > A recent patch ( 2 or 3 monthes I think) for trackbars broke > them totally in emule. So there was a problem for sure. I have > not tested the patch yet to know if it is fixed now. > > >Odd, I remember doing some work on the trackbar a few months > ago (it was > >pretty broken). Testing against the native comctl32 from > Windows 98 > >showed that I got it pretty close - do you have before/after > screenshots > >for this patch? Perhaps the trackbar looks different in 98 vs 2K. > > > > > >-- > >Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> > >QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center > > > > > Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; > 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34/mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn) > > -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

July 29, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by maxime.bellenge＠laposte.net

A recent patch ( 2 or 3 monthes I think) for trackbars broke them totally in emule. So there was a problem for sure. I have not tested the patch yet to know if it is fixed now. >Odd, I remember doing some work on the trackbar a few months ago (it was >pretty broken). Testing against the native comctl32 from Windows 98 >showed that I got it pretty close - do you have before/after screenshots >for this patch? Perhaps the trackbar looks different in 98 vs 2K. > > >-- >Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> >QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34/mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn)

July 29, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by BiGgUn

Hi, I'm currently working on a patch about trackbar sizes fixes. The main goal of this patch is to get rid off magic values and provide a more generic approach of trackbar computation. Some test cases have shown for example that thumb length doesn't depend on client rect fields. I also use some system metrics values (SM_CYCPATION) to compute some trackbar's elements. I'll try to send the patch ( screenshots also) as soon as possible. Stephan

July 29, 2003