April 2008 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: widl: callback, code, comm_status and in_line are attribute names, not keywords.

by Robert Shearman

Robert Shearman wrote: > --- > tools/widl/parser.l | 8 ++++---- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Just to note, this patch depends on the patch series that I sent yesterday and that I'm about to resend now. -- Rob Shearman

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Steven Edwards

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > That's ugly, both the environment variable hack and the global verbose > flag are really bad. There has to be a better way to do this. I am open to suggestions =) -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Alexandre Julliard

"Steven Edwards" <winehacker(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Peter Beutner <p.beutner(a)gmx.net> wrote: >> And the msg box will pop up. > > Your right. I see unless report_missing_dll_verbose is unset then its > going to spam on every dependent dll load failure for LoadLibrary. > Here is your and my patch combined. > > Julliard: Can you comment please? That's ugly, both the environment variable hack and the global verbose flag are really bad. There has to be a better way to do this. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Steven Edwards

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Peter Beutner <p.beutner(a)gmx.net> wrote: > And the msg box will pop up. Your right. I see unless report_missing_dll_verbose is unset then its going to spam on every dependent dll load failure for LoadLibrary. Here is your and my patch combined. Julliard: Can you comment please? Thanks -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Peter Beutner

Steven Edwards schrieb: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Paul Chitescu <paulc(a)voip.null.ro> wrote: >> Windows doesn't do that - when my application tries to load a module that >> links against a missing DLL then LoadLibrary simply fails without showing >> any message. The "ignore it if LoadLibrary fails" logic is common in many >> programs that use optional plugins. > > Then that would mean my patch is still correct. If LoadLibrary calls > foo.dll which is present but xyz.dll is missing then LoadLibrary is > still going to fail which will not trigger this case. > LoadLibrary will fail but the msg box will be displayed. just try: int main(int argc, char **argv) { HMODULE hmod; hmod = LoadLibrary("cryptnet.dll"); return 0; } then remove/rename crypt32.dll.so(which is imported by cryptnet.dll) and run wine start.exe /unix test.exe And the msg box will pop up.

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Steven Edwards

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Peter Beutner <p.beutner(a)gmx.net> wrote: > So clearing the env variable would be the correct thing. But still not > entirely > satisfying as mentioned above by Dan. > > I just tried to solve it differently, doing it entirely in ntdll. > (and probably you could even do it without using a global variable) > It certainly avoids all that pain dealing with environment variables ;). > > Not really heavily tested, but I think it works. I think your patch is better than mine in that the message box is more verbose but we still want the console ERR to print first and the MessageBox error to only show up from applications started with start.exe.so in Unix mode. I'll combine my patch with yours and send it along for further comment from Alexandre. -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Steven Edwards

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Paul Chitescu <paulc(a)voip.null.ro> wrote: > Windows doesn't do that - when my application tries to load a module that > links against a missing DLL then LoadLibrary simply fails without showing > any message. The "ignore it if LoadLibrary fails" logic is common in many > programs that use optional plugins. Then that would mean my patch is still correct. If LoadLibrary calls foo.dll which is present but xyz.dll is missing then LoadLibrary is still going to fail which will not trigger this case. -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

April 29, 2008

Re: Bad recommended package lists

by Alexandre Julliard

Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes: > Yes. At first glance I'd say audiofile, freeglut-devel, libtiff-devel, > prelink (or maybe at the RPM package level), audiofile-devel, > libicu-devel (not used anymore), imake. prelink is needed, it's used to set the load address of system dlls. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

April 29, 2008

Re: 1.0 idea - ntdll - add a messagebox for missing dlls

by Peter Beutner

Paul Chitescu schrieb: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Peter Beutner wrote: >> Steven Edwards schrieb: >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Steven Edwards >>> <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: >>>> > 2. You never clear that environment variable... what happens >>>> > when an app just tests for the existence of a DLL by >>>> > trying to load it? We don't want to print an error then. >>>> > (That's why I originally suggested clearing the env var >>>> > after the app finished loading. That's still broken -- it >>>> > won't catch errors in helper exes -- but it's better than nothing.) >>>> >>>> I assume you mean if the application is just checking manually for the >>>> dll via GetModuleHandle or LoadLibrary? I'll write a test case for >>>> this to see if it causes a problem. My assumption was that the failure >>>> case for that was at a higher level but I'll check with a test case. I >>>> don't think we need to clear the variable....what I mean is I wonder >>>> if there is a way to set the variable to be inherited by all child >>>> processes launched by start.exe.so in unix mode. I'll look in to this >>>> as well. >>> >>> I assumed the code path must be different so I wrote a test app that >>> tried to do a GetProcAddress or LoadLibrary on a non-existent dll and >>> was right, It did not throw the messagebox. >> >> But I think it will still trigger the msg box if the application is >> checking for >> an existent foo.dll via LoadLibrary and foo.dll depends on a missing >> xyz.dll. >> It won't trigger if you clear the environment variable as Dan said. >> I'm not sure though which way is the right one here. > > Windows doesn't do that - when my application tries to load a module > that links against a missing DLL then LoadLibrary simply fails without > showing any message. The "ignore it if LoadLibrary fails" logic is > common in many programs that use optional plugins. So clearing the env variable would be the correct thing. But still not entirely satisfying as mentioned above by Dan. I just tried to solve it differently, doing it entirely in ntdll. (and probably you could even do it without using a global variable) It certainly avoids all that pain dealing with environment variables ;). Not really heavily tested, but I think it works.

April 29, 2008

Re: [resend] [Try 4] [1/2] cabinet.dll -> FDICopy: Test added

by James Hawkins

2008/4/29 Vitaly Perov <vitperov(a)etersoft.ru>: > jhawkins(a)codeweavers.com : cabinet: Revert "cabinet: Fix for FDICopy with an > empty cabinet file." > > Hi, > > > > The test was incorrect and failed on all platforms. Vitaly, please > > ask someone to test your patches on a real windows system in the > > future if you don't have access to one. > > I have tested this patch on Win98. It didn't failed. > But on WinXP it failed. > > The pach comes with this test fix a problem, so installation of certain > software (it includes one empty cab-file ) doesn't fail anymore. > I don't think, that this patch can cause any problem with a software developed > for WinXP. > > So, please look it trough once more. > Just look at the test results: http://test.winehq.org/data/200804252248/ It fails on every single platform, including win98. -- James Hawkins

April 29, 2008