September 2004 - Wine-Devel

Re: Wine and industrial communication like OPC
by Rickard Svensson Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

> >> But I have to convince my boss... > >> How meny ours do you think it wood take to get DCom to work in Wine? > >> 50 h / 100h / 500h / 1000h ? > > > Good question. I'm afraid I have no idea, it's impossible to predict. > > Maybe it helps, if you have a OPC server source code to see what is needed > on COM/DCOM functions. You can find a free (LGPL) OPC server on the > following link: > > http://www.ipi.ac.ru/lab43/lopc-en.html Thank you, always good to have a LGPL version... But the big problem is DCom > We are a small software company, and I know that some customers of us are > interested in OPC on Linux in the past. There is one working solution as far > as I know. It is a OPC Toolkit from Technotrend which is based on the > COM/DCOM implementation EntireX of Software AG. But its not Open Source > unfortunally. > > Some links about this: > > http://www.opcconnect.com/tooltech.php > http://www2.softwareag.com/corporate/products/entirex/default.asp > http://www.tsopc.com/modules/solutions/products.html > > I don't know the license cost of this products at the moment, because our > customers decided not to use Linux. I gote a privet mail tipp for that Solution to, it lookt god untill I lookt at Technosoftwares "Software AG's EntireX DCOM on Linux" and AG's EntireX DCOM licens: http://www2.softwareag.com/Corporate/products/entirex/downloads/downl_exxdc… It seems like they wanted a license from all users (not just a development License), so that don't look good in our case. But they have a free vertion for non comersial use, if someone else is helpt by that... And a free trial vertion, for companies. Perhaps could be interesting to try it. Thanks for your tipp thow. /Rickard -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

Re: avifil32: use InterlockedDecrement and InterlockedIncrement instead of ++/--
by Robert Shearman Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

James Hawkins wrote: >Changelog > * use InterlockedDecrement and InterlockedIncrement instead of ++/-- > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Index: dlls/avifil32/avifile.c >=================================================================== >RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/avifil32/avifile.c,v >retrieving revision 1.48 >diff -u -r1.48 avifile.c >--- dlls/avifil32/avifile.c 6 Sep 2004 21:34:26 -0000 1.48 >+++ dlls/avifil32/avifile.c 16 Sep 2004 01:48:46 -0000 >@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ > IAVIFileImpl *This = (IAVIFileImpl *)iface; > > TRACE("(%p) -> %ld\n", iface, This->ref + 1); >- return ++(This->ref); >+ return InterlockedIncrement(&This->ref); > } > > static ULONG WINAPI IAVIFile_fnRelease(IAVIFile *iface) >@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ > > TRACE("(%p) -> %ld\n", iface, This->ref - 1); > >- if (!--(This->ref)) { >+ if (!InterlockedDecrement(&This->ref)) { > A small nitpick, but the correct way implement the Release function is this: ULONG uRefs = InterlockedDecrement(&This->ref); if (!uRefs) /* Free stuff */ return uRefs; > if (This->fDirty) { > /* need to write headers to file */ > AVIFILE_SaveFile(This); >@@ -743,7 +743,7 @@ > if (This->paf != NULL) > IAVIFile_AddRef((PAVIFILE)This->paf); > >- return ++(This->ref); >+ return InterlockedIncrement(&This->ref); > } > > static ULONG WINAPI IAVIStream_fnRelease(IAVIStream* iface) >@@ -758,7 +758,7 @@ > return 0; > } > >- This->ref--; >+ InterlockedDecrement(&This->ref); > > if (This->paf != NULL) > IAVIFile_Release((PAVIFILE)This->paf); > >

1 0

Re: Wine and industrial communication like OPC
by Rickard Svensson Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.QinetiQ.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:55:47 +0100 To: Rickard Svensson <riq(a)mail.com> Subject: Re: Wine and industrial communication like OPC > > I found the DCom update for Win 98 (Se: http://www.microsoft.com/com/dcom/dcom98/download.asp?SD=GN&LN=SV&gssnb=1) > > The licens is bad: (Se: http://www.microsoft.com/com/dcom/dcom98/eula.asp) > > --- --- --- --- > > 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: > > > > * Software License. Microsoft grants you the right to make and use as many copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as you have validly licensed copies of Microsoft® Windows® 98. You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for backup and archival purposes. > > > > * Distribution. You may not redistribute DCOM98. > > > > --- --- --- --- > > Yes, it's not good. I'm not sure about the distribution clause: > presumably it's talking about the package itself rather than the > software but obviously IANAL. I don't know that much about licenses, but the second point seem to stop all distribution: "You may not redistribute DCOM98." > > But I have to convince my boss... > > How meny ours do you think it wood take to get DCom to work in Wine? > > 50 h / 100h / 500h / 1000h ? > > Good question. I'm afraid I have no idea, it's impossible to predict. > > I've CCd Rob as really me and Rob are the only ones who have been > hacking on the DCOM code lately. Mike has been doing some work on widl > but that wouldn't be necessary to get a wire-compatible DCOM. > > If I had to guess, I'd say we're looking at 500 man hours + OK, now I have an aproximate time to go on, and talk to my boss about. > > I'm the one who is mostly for Linux here, as I mentioned XP ersion is on the way, we have used QT to make or application. So it is > easy to migrate and there is a definite risk that all will go towards a > XP embedded variant :( > > That would be bad, but you win some you lose some .... Yes, but for me personly the Linux work in this company would probably be redused to a minimum. /Rickard -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: Pager Control: Rewritten
by Dimitrie O. Paun Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 07:54:44PM +0100, Robert Shearman wrote: > Hi, > > This is a large patch that rewrites a lot of the layout and button state > code in the pager control. Cool stuff. While this is still fresh in your mind, an audit against comctrl v6.0 would be good too... :) -- Dimi.

4 3

Re: Other W->A crosscalls
by Rolf Kalbermatter Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

Michael Stefaniuc wrote: >Ok, attached is a modified wine_crosscalls.pl script which use smatch's >abilities better. Also it includes an easy way to check for false >positives. At the moment output from the wine tests is ignored. Also *AW >functions are allowed to call *A funtions so those are excluded too. >On tests done with the wine-20040914 release we get following results: >old crosscalls script: 275 lines >new crosscalls script: 234 lines >Dimi's hand edited list: 178 lines Your list would get a tiny bit shorter (~55 items) if the "*AW calls *A" would really be excluded. (They seem only in the shell32) Rolf Kalbermatter

1 0

Re: Other W->A crosscalls
by Juan Lang Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

Michael wrote: > Also *AW functions are allowed to call *A funtions > so those are excluded too. There seem to be quite a few of these from shell32 still included: dlls/shell32/shellpath.c 62 PathAppendAW: call to PathAppendA dlls/shell32/shellpath.c 75 PathCombineAW: call to PathCombineA dlls/shell32/shellpath.c 85 PathAddBackslashAW: call to PathAddBackslashA dlls/shell32/shellpath.c 95 PathBuildRootAW: call to PathBuildRootA --Juan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

2 1

Other W->A crosscalls
by Vincent Béron Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

I played a bit with smatch and Wine (after reading http://people.redhat.com/mstefani/wine/smatch/) to try to get over what I mentionned in my last email (regarding winapi_check and cross-calls in parenthesis). I attach the smatch script to generate the results I have. It's still not perfect (the listview.c references are wrong, for example), but as it's tied to gcc it can detect some calls which otherwise would not be caught. For example, the calls to GetWindowLongA in header.c are in a macro. Not all of them are bugs: caution is needed when checking, although reducing the number of false positive would likely be welcome (either by modifying the script or patches). Vincent

4 6

winemaker
by Patrick Goupell Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

I was looking at the development tasklets for something I might be able to do. I noticed bug #230 - winemaker: Extract more information from the source files. How do I make known my interest in attempting to do this task?

4 9

RE: Cryptographic functions
by Juan Lang Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

Rolf wrote: > My Advapi32.dll Ver 5.0.2195.6876 from W2K SP4 does > not export these functions at all. Yeah, I didn't remember them showing up in advapi32 until XP. MSDN mentions them as part of cryptdll.dll: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/devnotes/w… This also exists in XP. Perhaps XP's advapi32.dll forwards these to cryptdll? --Juan _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: Cryptographic functions
by Rolf Kalbermatter Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

Juan Lang wrote: >Yeah, I didn't remember them showing up in advapi32 >until XP. MSDN mentions them as part of cryptdll.dll: >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/devnotes/w… > >This also exists in XP. Perhaps XP's advapi32.dll >forwards these to cryptdll? It would make sense for this algorithme being in cryptdll instead and advapi32.dll just forwarding to it, if it really exports those symbols. MSDN talks about these functions being included as resource in cryptdll. Talk about being clear, to me they seem to be exported by name just as other functions. However W2K only contains the MD5 functions. A_SHA only seems to have gotten added to XP. Rolf Kalbermatter

1 0