September 2003 - Wine-Devel

Re: uxtheme.dll

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Kevin wrote: > Because of this, I've been thinking about beginning an implementation of > uxtheme.dll. I am curious if someone has already taken up this task, or if > anyone any opinions on this topic. I'm not aware of anyone working on this. This would be a nice contribution to Wine. -- Dimi.

Sept. 30, 2003

Re: Question about WineX licences

by Ove Kaaven

tir, 30.09.2003 kl. 02.24 skrev Jonathan Wilson: > From what I understand, if you download the WineX source tree, you get > code under LGPL, code under X11 and code under APL (which is basicly a > licence chosen to make sure that others cant just grab those bits and use them) > > Does anyone know which bits are under APL? I know the directx bits are but > what else is TransGaming holding back? The list is here: http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1 Everything that's LGPL should be listed on the above page. Additionally, code in ReWind is X11. Anything else in WineX may be assumed AFPL, but may also be released as X11 at TransGaming's discretion. I think most non-DirectX code (and even a limited subset of the DirectX code) could be released as X11 on request, although that's up to Gav.

Sept. 30, 2003

Re: wine & ccache

by Alexandre Julliard

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dimi(a)intelliware.ca> writes: >> Some time ago I looked into hacking make_dlls to do this, but there >> were too many special cases to make it worthwhile. > > Too bad, we have a fairly regular structure in dlls/ do you remember > what the problems were? One problem is that most makefiles specify different defines, so you basically need to have one different rule for each C file. Then there are many files that have explicit rules. It could be done, but I don't think it's worth it, and the result would be really messy and hard to maintain. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

Sept. 30, 2003

Question about WineX licences

by Jonathan Wilson

From what I understand, if you download the WineX source tree, you get code under LGPL, code under X11 and code under APL (which is basicly a licence chosen to make sure that others cant just grab those bits and use them) Does anyone know which bits are under APL? I know the directx bits are but what else is TransGaming holding back?

Sept. 30, 2003

Re: Fix for bug 640 - moving thin frames leaves mess

by Sylvain Petreolle

What Paintbrush are you using ? Im using winme's and got no such problem when saving images (no natives are used except mfc42and mfc42loc) But I have another big problem : if anything is modified, the whole image becomes a black square when saved. > Paintbrush won't exit without saving. > > Saving images crashes with: > Unhandled exception: unimplemented function > olesvr.dll.OLERENAMESERVERDOC > called in 32-bit code (0x413b6250). > ===== Sylvain Petreolle (spetreolle_at_users_dot_sourceforge_dot_net) ICQ #170597259 Say NO to software patents Dites NON aux brevets logiciels "What if tomorrow the War could be over ?" Morpheus, in "Reloaded". ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Sept. 29, 2003

uxtheme.dll

by Kevin

I started work porting a windows app using winelib, and hit an issue relating to the fact that there is currently no implementation of uxtheme.dll (and more importantly, no headers, of which would be enough to compile the app as it dynamically loads all the uxtheme dlls as needed, and falls back gracefully) Because of this, I've been thinking about beginning an implementation of uxtheme.dll. I am curious if someone has already taken up this task, or if anyone any opinions on this topic. Thanks Kevin

Sept. 29, 2003

Re: wine & ccache

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On 29 Sep 2003, Vincent Béron wrote: > A bit OT: when configure/configure.ac is patched, I assume the next make > will require a ./configure before (and hence a full make)? yes, it will require a configure, but chances are that it will invaldate very little in the cache, so you still get the speed advantage. > Cold (ie, no Wine work since last reboot): > real 16.2s See, there's stuff to improve here... :) > Hot (a second time just after): > real 2.3s Yeap, I hate you too! :) -- Dimi.

Sept. 29, 2003

Re: wine & ccache

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Some time ago I looked into hacking make_dlls to do this, but there > were too many special cases to make it worthwhile. Too bad, we have a fairly regular structure in dlls/ do you remember what the problems were? > And on my new box > the recursion takes less than 2 seconds so I no longer care <g> That's it, I hate you now! :) 10x faster!!! This box of mine is like 3 years old, man oh man... Yeah, but imagine doing that in .3s, eh? ;) -- Dimi.

Sept. 29, 2003

Re: wine & ccache

by Vincent Béron

Le lun 29/09/2003 à 17:35, Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit : > Hi folks, > > Just wanted to let people know that ccache works rather well > with wine. On my lowly 600MHz Pentium box, it takes about > 1h to compile, after a make clean. Second time through it > takes about 1/4h to do the same thing, 75% faster! (As an > added bonus, CPU utilization dropped from 86% to 60%) A bit OT: when configure/configure.ac is patched, I assume the next make will require a ./configure before (and hence a full make)? > How long does it take to do a 'time make -s' after > a full build on one of the beefier boxes? Athlon XP1800+ (not that beef in those Athlon64 days): Cold (ie, no Wine work since last reboot): real 16.2s user 3.8s sys 5.0s Hot (a second time just after): real 2.3s user 1.4s sys 0.6s Vincent

Sept. 29, 2003

Re: decompiling

by Ivan Leo Murray-Smith

OK, I won't, promise.

Sept. 29, 2003