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

Re: Flush serial port

by Uwe Bonnes

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> writes: Alexandre> Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: >> Changelog: wine/server/file.c: create_file() If we open a serial >> device, flush it Alexandre> This should be done in serial.c, but could you please explain Alexandre> why this is necessary? Testing with the loopback adapter again, it clearly shows that flush is necessary. I am not sure, if the flush should be done on open or close. I decided to go for flushing with open(). If you want to test yourself, shortcut RXD to TXD and run the kernel/test/comm.c with LOOPBACK_TXD_RXD set to TRUE. The test for cbInQue == 0 in test_ClearCommErrors() will fail with a newly opended FileHandle when something was put into the receive buffer before. The test succeeds on XP. A corrected patch is in wine-patches. -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

July 31, 2005

usp10.dll regression

by Oliver Stieber

Hi, Reciently I've been getting a lot of applications failing with 'unimplemented function usp10.dll.ScriptGetFontProperties' and I've had to use native usp10.dll which I didn't need to before. ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Tom Wickline

On 7/30/05, Anssi Hannula <anssi.hannula(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know if you already read my post, but I see now some very > strange numbers, like -326%. That would mean Wine had negative 3D marks :S :-) > > Just use the above formula (e.g. Wine's score always first), no matter > if wine has a better or worse result than XP. > > Wrong: 19197 / 5888 = 3.26 => -326% > > Right: (5888 / 19197) - 1 = -0.69 = -69% Yea I know, I was goofing off and put the wrong ones in just to see what it looked like...... horrid to say the least... If you have a couple free minutes can you go over my %'s to make sure i didn't make a typo? BTW, Thanks! Tom > > -- > Anssi Hannula > >

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Anssi Hannula

Anssi Hannula wrote: > Tom Wickline wrote: >> Any more recommendations? > > The % are apparently calculated wrong. > > You should use: > (Wine score / XP score) - 1 > > For example in the first CPU Marks you say XP 650, Wine 786, +18% > > However, (786 / 650) - 1 = 0.2092307692307692 ~ +21% > I don't know if you already read my post, but I see now some very strange numbers, like -326%. That would mean Wine had negative 3D marks :S Just use the above formula (e.g. Wine's score always first), no matter if wine has a better or worse result than XP. Wrong: 19197 / 5888 = 3.26 => -326% Right: (5888 / 19197) - 1 = -0.69 = -69% -- Anssi Hannula

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Anssi Hannula

Tom Wickline wrote: > Does this look presentable? Much better now. > Any more recommendations? The % are apparently calculated wrong. You should use: (Wine score / XP score) - 1 For example in the first CPU Marks you say XP 650, Wine 786, +18% However, (786 / 650) - 1 = 0.2092307692307692 ~ +21% -- Anssi Hannula

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Tom Wickline

On 7/28/05, Holger Dell <mail(a)holger-dell.de> wrote: > has anyone ever tried to use grpof or any other profiling tool to > analyze, which code eats most cpu time (=bottlenecks). > normally, if you develop something, you first go for functionality and > after that for speed. it's not good for wine to hack for speed (like > cedega does, as far as I know) and recognize later, that it was the > wrong decision, because of incompatibilities or incompleteness. Anyone here use Cedega and have the time to waist and benchmark it against Wine? Would a modern benchmark even run on there Warez? As im a advocate of OSS I don't use there offerings. Tom > holger. > > >

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Tom Wickline

On 7/30/05, Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> wrote: > > Looks great! I must admit that having XP on the left side may be > preferable, if it's not too much work. Does this look presentable? Any more recommendations? Anyone other than Mitchell think I should change "Wine vs. XP" to "Wine Difference" ? Tom > > -- > Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> > Lattica, Inc. > >

July 31, 2005

Re: Benchmark's on the Wiki

by Dimi Paun

On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 05:43 -0400, Tom Wickline wrote: > I'm not finished, but I thought I would ask if this going in the right > direction? > http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark Looks great! I must admit that having XP on the left side may be preferable, if it's not too much work. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.

July 30, 2005

Re: LoadString problems

by Felix Nawothnig

James Hawkins wrote: > Maybe that only returns the > hinstance of the process calling the module, and not the hinstance of > the module itself. Ofcourse it doesn't do that, how should it know from what module the call came from? (Yes, there are ways. But they are hackish, wouldn't work always and this is not what MSDN says about this function anyway) The right way is to store the HINSTANCE passed to DllMain on DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH in a global variable and use that. Felix

July 30, 2005

Re: LoadString problems

by James Hawkins

On 7/30/05, Frank Richter <frank.richter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 30.07.2005 09:06, James Hawkins wrote: > > TCITEMA tie; > > char text[MAX_PATH]; > > > > LoadStringA(NULL, IDS_CONTENTS, text, MAX_PATH); > > /* text should be '&Contents', but we get a GetLastError() */ > > Hm, wouldn't it be better use wide strings? > The version I send in to wine-patches will use unicode, but for development/testing purposes I'm just using ansi. -- James Hawkins

July 30, 2005