February 2005 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Latest News needs a url fix!
by Tom Feb. 12, 2005

Feb. 12, 2005

The latest news on the frontpage has a incorrect link, "Read more" points to : http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.95 when it should be 1.96 I'm away from my Linux box tonight or I would send a patch... Can someone fix this? Tom

2 1

Re: Fix winsock / protcol.c compilation on Windows
by Paul Vriens Feb. 12, 2005

Feb. 12, 2005

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 23:09, Francois Gouget wrote: > I guess this was accidental. > > > Changelog: > > * dlls/winsock/tests/protocol.c > > Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> > Tests cannot use wine/test.h because it does not exist on Windows. Hi Francois, the Changelog says wine/test.h, yet you remove wine/debug.h ? Cheers, Paul.

1 0

Appdb hackers please read
by Ivan Leo Puoti Feb. 12, 2005

Feb. 12, 2005

Hello guys, I have the impression the inactive warning messages have been sent out again, I was convinced they were only sent once, followed a month later by a closed account notification. In any case please solve the problem, I can't take 500+ bounces in my mail box every other day, I'm planning to fill up my gmail box in something like 2040, not mid 2005, and don't want to waste time deleting hundreds of bounces. Ivan.

1 0

strange problem with RtlCompareUnicodeString
by Ivan Leo Puoti Feb. 12, 2005

Feb. 12, 2005

RtlCompareUnicodeString should return 0 if it receives two identical string. But for some strange reason this code http://rafb.net/paste/results/e3tHCg40.html prints this output http://rafb.net/paste/results/SS5U2N81.html Is it a mistake I've missed, or is this a bug in the implementation of RtlCompareUnicodeString? Ivan.

1 1

Re: Re: winrash bug
by Chris Morgan Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

Oh, that's mostly because I was lazy. I'm pretty sure the text says that "if you are on windows95 you should install winsock2". I'm not sure how to detect whether the user needs to install winsock2 or not by looking at dlls. I was planning on adding detection of the windows version and using that as a way of narrowing down who sees the winsock prompt. That doesn't address which version of winsock the user has installed though... I'll put in the windows version check so only 95 users see the winsock2 prompt since thats pretty easy. Chris > > From: Ivan Leo Puoti <ivanleo(a)gmail.com> > Date: 2005/02/08 Tue PM 02:11:29 EST > To: cmorgan(a)alum.wpi.edu > CC: wine-devel(a)winehq.com > Subject: Re: winrash bug > > Chris Morgan wrote: > > >Is this based on what the installer displays or upon output from winrash in the debug.txt file? > > > > > It is based on the installer telling me I'm on windows 95 and that I > must install the > winsock2 update for windows 95. > > Ivan. >

3 2

Re: Real-world appdb
by Holly Bostick Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

(3rd of 3) Chris Morgan wrote: >>Then vote for what you really want or need... I want to see 100 games >>working but if I had to pick one >>it would be HL2. And if you give me 20 or 30 votes there *diluted* votes >>from the get-go! > > I agree. Maybe 5 votes per-user is a good number so each one counts but all of their eggs aren't in one basket. > > Chris > > >

1 0

Re: Real-world appdb
by Holly Bostick Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

(2nd of 3) Tom wrote: > Chris Morgan wrote: > >>> Having a single vote per-person makes the assumption that the person >>> has a single application that they want working. Often users have a >>> handful of them. I'd prefer multiple votes per-person. >> > Then vote for what you really want or need... I want to see 100 games > working but if I had to pick one > it would be HL2. And if you give me 20 or 30 votes there *diluted* votes > from the get-go! > If you have *one* vote its going to mean something...... if you have > 20-30 votes what is vote 28 > going to really mean to you? That you searched around looking for > something to vote for? > > We have 10 categories at this time and if we do move to multiable votes > I would only hope > we set it to 1 vote per categorie and that would give 10 diluted votes.... > > Tom > >>> Clearing the current votes is a safe bet. >>> >>> Chris >>> > >

1 0

Re: Real-world appdb
by Holly Bostick Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

How you guys managed to hit "Reply to all" and somehow not include the list, I don't know, but I'll forward :-) ... (1st of 3 such) Chris Morgan wrote: >>>- Voting for app version ( not app family). >>>- only one vote per person per version. >>>- more total votes, say 10-20 instead of 3. >>> >>> >>I would like to propose......... >> >>- one person one vote >>- vote for app family not version >>- clear the current votes and start fresh... >> > > Having a single vote per-person makes the assumption that the person has a single application that they want working. Often users have a handful of them. I'd prefer multiple votes per-person. > > Clearing the current votes is a safe bet. > > Chris > > > >

1 0

Wine, CrossOver wins LQ Members Choice awards 2004
by Mike Hearn Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

Hey, we won by a large margin! http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=272137 Wine 293 42.59% Crossover Office 139 20.20% Cedega 131 19.04% VMware 101 14.68% Win4lin 24 3.49% Good going chaps and chapettes! Nice also to see the results are ranked in rough order of "freeness" too. Let's see if we can win again in the 2005 voting :) thanks -mike

3 2

Subject: Re: Faster TlsAlloc() or zero_bit_scan
by Dietrich Teickner Feb. 11, 2005

Feb. 11, 2005

Not all You can every write in c/c++. Sometime You need a call for a library function. I think, that can be one and I think, not only TlsAlloc use a zero_bit_scan. It must be first zero_bit in the first 'bytecount' DWORD from the bitmap addr. Dietrich On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:59:21 +0100, Dietrich Teickner wrote: >> I have a suggestion for a faster implementation of the zero_bit_scan in >> RtlFindClearBits [NTDLL.@] >> (rlbitmap.c) for e.g. TlsAlloc() >> The main is the usage of the instruction 'bsf eax, eax' >> >> This I have implemented in the new experimental odinxp-tree for finding >> the first zero_bit in the first 'bytecount' bytes of the bitmap addr. Does this actually make a noticeable difference? Rewriting stuff in assembly for theoretical performance improvements isn't so great, as far fewer people can read/write assembly than C. thanks -mike

1 0