- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

automatic tests screwed up again
by Ivan Leo Puoti Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

In the reports page the link to the tests points to http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/paulm/WRT/CrossBuilt/winetest-200411251000… and this is probably what the server tells winrash to download, but it returns a 404. The test actually is at http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/paulm/WRT/CrossBuilt/winetest-200411251000… can someone please fix this? Ivan. ____________________________________________________________ Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione. Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

3 3

Re: [OLE #2] Provide Reference Implementation of DllCanUnloadNow
by Dmitry Timoshkov Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

"Robert Shearman" <rob(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > -DWORD dll_ref = 0; > +LONG cLocks; ... > +/********************************************************************** > + * Dll lifetime tracking declaration > + */ > +void LockModule() > +{ > + InterlockedIncrement(&cLocks); > +} > + > +void UnlockModule() > +{ > + InterlockedDecrement(&cLocks); > +} Perhaps it would be better to prefix both a variable and lock/unlock interfaces with a module name, in this case "DEVENUM_" since they are global and externally visible. -- Dmitry.

4 5

Re: IME window class update
by Ivan Leo Puoti Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

> You mean 65535, in which case it'd be 0xffff? Nope, just doubled checked and with the value is 65553, or 0x10011. Ivan. ____________________________________________________________ Libero ADSL: 3 mesi gratis e navighi a 1.2 Mega, senza costi di attivazione. Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

1 0

Re: IME window class update
by Andreas Mohr Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

Hi, On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:38:39PM +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote: > This patch is based on the IME window class implemented in windows 2000 and xp. > On both OSes hCursor is 65553, but I don't know what that is, maybe it's a > custom IME cursor? You mean 65535, in which case it'd be 0xffff? No idea what kind of cursor that is, but it looks like an invalid/unused one... Andreas Mohr

1 0

attemp at implementing DllCanUnload now for dcompos
by James Hawkins Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

Hey all, It would really help me out if you could look over this patch and see if I've incorrectly implemented ref-counting and DllCanUnloadNow for dcompos. I used suggestions from Rob and a sample implementation written by him. The only concern I have is that I'm not sure if all of these classes are non-heap based. -- James Hawkins

3 3

Re: systray rewrite part 2
by Grant Williamson Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

Mike, ok the rewrite, applies & compiles cleanly on 20041019, however, running SIP Phone-lite, it does not show on the systray, the older patch did. I am running gnome-2.8 on rhel4, what program do you want us to test with it. Mike Hearn wrote: >Clearly, I need to figure out a system for generating patches. This time >with (hopefully) all the files in the patch. > >- Add a new wineshell process, and put system tray handling in there >- Rewrite the shell32 systray handling to be out of process >- Support the freedesktop.org XEMBED protocol > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >

2 3

SHBrowseForFolder
by Robert van Herk Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

Hi all, I am trying to implement the Browse button in the winecfg application, that would allow people to browse for a directory to use as their virtual c drive. In order to do so, I though I'd use the SHBrowseForFolder function from shlobj.h (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/shellcc/pl…) However, when I tried this in Wine, I get a compiler warning: In driveui.c I did: case IDC_BUTTON_BROWSE_PATH: SHBrowseForFolder(0); //MessageBox(dialog, "", "Write me!", MB_OK); break; Then, at compile time I get: driveui.c:589: warning: undefined reference to `SHBrowseForFolderA' I made sure that there is a line that says: #include <shlobj.h> When I try to launch the app, I get ./winecfg wine: could not load L"Z:\\home\\robert\\Documents\\devel\\wine\\programs\\winecfg\\winecfg.exe.so": /home/robert/.wine/dosdevices/z:/home/robert/Documents/devel/wine/programs/winecfg/winecfg.exe.so: undefined symbol: SHBrowseForFolderA Does this mean that the SHBrowseForFolder thing is not implemented? Probably it is, because I checked Wine's shlobj.h. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, Robert

9 33

Re: Implement GetLayout
by Shachar Shemesh Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

Rémi Assailly wrote: > Shachar Shemesh wrote : > >> Thanks for spotting another one for my growing heap of BiDi TODOs.... >> >> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2584 >> >> Shachar >> > I know that there is no effect... I'm sorry if I came off cynical. There was no cynicism in that comment. I opened 2584 as a result of seeing your patch. I was not aware of this particular missing functionality. I'm aiming for http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=609 to be the ultimate documentation of all BiDi APIs in Windows. Opening 2584 is a good thing, as it documents things that are still to be done. > What is wrong ? It seems that this flag reverses the meaning of several common conventions (left/right etc.). The idea is probably so that applications that are natively right to left not have to change their design too much. I can't tell you exactly what it means, however, as I don't know myself. It will probably be a matter of comparing behaviors to the real Windows. I have some doubts about whether anyone is even using this flag at all. Maybe on localized Hebrew Windows, where the whole window decorations are reversed (Ughh. My GF has localized XP Home installed. This thing is horrible, but I didn't spot any non-Windows native applications that were affected by it). > Tell me and I will help you, if you want... I'll gladly accept all the help I can get. Basically, this particular unimplemented bit requires writing small test programs on Windows, and then running them on Wine until they produce the same results. The idea is that you read the MSDN page for the function (linked from the bug). That page also links to http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/winui/winui/windowsuserinterface/wi…, which gives more details on what this flag is supposed to mean. If you check out 2584 again, you will see I added this new information there. The steps one takes is to read all the relevant manuals, and try to understand what this means. Next, you write a small test program that does stuff with and without this flag, showing where this flag takes effect on Windows. Next, you move this test program to Wine and start tweaking Wine until it behaves the same there. There is also a last step, which is to make this program into a test suite, returning success or failure. I'm not sure, however, how that is supposed to be done for programs where success and failure are measured with graphical output. Hope this helps you help me help everyone..... :-) Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/

2 1

Re: [OLE #3] Tests For COM Functions
by Dmitry Timoshkov Dec. 2, 2004

Dec. 2, 2004

"Robert Shearman" <rob(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > I have only tried these tests on WinXP SP2. Please report > if they fail on Win9x. In order compile the tests with Platform SDK I applied the attached patch. Under win2k SP4 I got: marshal.c:898: Test failed: CoGetClassObject should have returned CO_E_SERVER_STOPPING instead of 0x80040154 Under Win95 the tests don't run due to missing APIs CoResumeClassObjects and CoInitializeEx. -- Dmitry.

1 1

Re: <<PATCH>> Added shell32.dll functions to browse for unix directory;
by Rolf Kalbermatter Dec. 1, 2004

Dec. 1, 2004

Robert van Herk wrote: >-LPITEMIDLIST WINAPI SHBrowseForFolderA (LPBROWSEINFOA lpbi) >+static INT_PTR BrowseW (LPBROWSEINFOW lpbi, DLGPROC dlgproc, enum browsemode aBrowseMode) >+{ >+ INT_PTR ret; >+ >+ browseMode = aBrowseMode; ^^^^^^^^^^ I may miss something here but this looks like a global variable and that would make these function theoretically thread unsafe. As long as only winecfg is going to use this functionality for the unix case it seems not a problem as there is probably not any chance that the native Windows version is called at that moment but this may of course change in the future. Rolf Kalbermatter

3 5