- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

driver question
by Hetz Ben Hamo June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

Hi, I'm not an expert on licensing, and I thought to ask this question here - I'm not trying to make any emails flame war - just need a simple answer... A friend of mine is toying with an idea to write a frame buffer driver instead of the x11drv on wine, but he doesn't think his boss will allow to release the code.. Can he (legally) write the driver, bundle it with the lgpl'd wine and sell it? or is this illegal? Thanks, Hetz

2 1

Re: null midi device
by Eric Pouech June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

> I was thinking: Couldn't one use timidity to make a fake midi device > that actually produces sound? That would be something. I thought about it. you need to use timidity 0.20i (the last one from the original author released under LGPL, the next ones are released under GPL). Then, to make it a real midi driver (in terms of Win32 API) which isn't a trivial task (for example, timidity pre-processes the full content of the MIDI file to be played, whilst a standard MIDI driver has to play midi notes on the fly...). I did start looking at that a long time ago, but without real results in so far. A+ --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) The future will be better tomorrow, Vice President Dan Quayle ____________________________________________________________ Faites un voeu et puis Voila ! www.voila.fr Avec Voila Mail, consultez vos e-mails sur votre mobile Wap.

6 9

builtin oleaut32
by Ann and Jason Edmeades June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

Hello, I have been doing some playing with builtin oleaut32 and a Visual Basic program I am trying to get working under wine with no-windows (well, as little as possible anyway). I noticed after copying some ocx files from windows, I was starting to trap due to unimplemented stubs inside oleaut32, and have started coding up just enough to get my application working. Every time I fix one issue, I find 2 others, so before I dive in too far has anyone else done any work in improving this area which hasnt been submitted, or is anyone actively working on this - or should I just continue? Currently I have: VarCmp support for BSTR and Integer variants VarAnd support for boolean variants only VarNot support for boolean variants only VarParseNumFromStr support for negative numbers VarNumFromParseNum support shorts VarDateFromUDate return value is incorrect VarNot support for boolean variants only Two other questions as I am still fairly new at Unix in general, let alone wine.... 1. What is the policy on patches - Is one big one with all changes for the same module ok? 2. What about tracing - While writing them I have added trace to show the parms and return values (relay just shows the rc whereas the actual return value is normally a third varient). Should I leave these in? Thanks Jason

2 1

RE: builtin oleaut32
by Medland, Bill June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

> -----Original Message----- > From: Ann and Jason Edmeades [mailto:us(a)the-edmeades.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:20 AM > To: wine devel > Subject: builtin oleaut32 > > > Hello, > > I have been doing some playing with builtin oleaut32 and a > Visual Basic > program I am trying to get working under wine with no-windows > (well, as > little as possible anyway). > > I noticed after copying some ocx files from windows, I was > starting to trap > due to unimplemented stubs inside oleaut32, and have started > coding up just > enough to get my application working. Every time I fix one > issue, I find 2 > others, so before I dive in too far has anyone else done any work in > improving this area which hasnt been submitted, or is anyone actively > working on this - or should I just continue? Basically that's what I noted too. I am sort of working in the area but I haven't even got everything working natively yet (since I started from a non-windows installation and it's hard to figure out what needs to be put in). I would suggest that the best solution is to submit small packages at regular intervals. > > Currently I have: > VarCmp support for BSTR and Integer variants > VarAnd support for boolean variants only > VarNot support for boolean variants only > VarParseNumFromStr support for negative numbers > VarNumFromParseNum support shorts > VarDateFromUDate return value is incorrect > VarNot support for boolean variants only > > Two other questions as I am still fairly new at Unix in > general, let alone > wine.... > 1. What is the policy on patches - Is one big one with all > changes for the > same module ok? > 2. What about tracing - While writing them I have added trace > to show the > parms and return values (relay just shows the rc whereas the > actual return > value is normally a third varient). Should I leave these in? Sounds a good idea. Presumably they are under the ole debug channel. If it gets ridiculous it might be worth adding a new debug channel. > > Thanks > Jason > > > Bill

1 0

Re: Linux patch for supporting shortcuts and symlinks on VFAT
by Brian Vincent June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

> It seem that at least some people are against it inclusion so I > wonder whether we should support inclusion of the patch or not. I'd agree that doing it at the kernel level isn't the answer. You don't want to abstract that information away from the user. Plus, like Francois mentioned there's a bunch of cases where it's just not going to work. However, what would be interesting (if you're going to parse the .lnk file anyway) is to display it as a symlink, but not actually have it operate as a link. For instance: -rw-r--r-- 1 vinn power 22 Jun 11 09:16 junk -> c:\Program Files\bar At that point it becomes useful to parse large directories of .lnk files by simply reading the directory. Leave it up to the application (Wine, etc) to figure out how to translate the path. With proper error handling you could probably add it as a "feature" to every filesystem. </$.02> -brian

1 0

Re: FPU patch for bug 586
by Ove Kaaven June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, admiral coeyman wrote: > Ove Kaaven, > > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, admiral coeyman wrote: > > > > > This patch adds the self-modifying code part of the FPU interrupts 34->3b and > > > moves int 3d into the winedos section. > > > > Oh, I've been meaning to reply, but hadn't got around to it yet... it > > makes no sense to use MapDosToLinear(MapRealToLinear()). It should be > > obvious from its name that MapRealToLinear already converted to a linear > > address, so that's all you need. And MapLinearToDos will probably *not* do > > what you want, you should change the real-mode pointer directly instead, > > as in general you just can't convert a linear address back to real mode. > > Otherwise, the code is probably OK... > > > I was unsure of the memory handling functions. Both of these functions report > that they return linear addresses, but I read one as a dos linear address and > the other as a wine linear address. It was a mistake on my part. I read it as > though I had to convert the seg:offset code to a dos linear address, then > convert it to a wine linear address. It may have made more sense to me if I > hadn't been worried about the addresses being in the wrong order. Well, the meanings of these address types are, if I remember right: Real = 16-bit real mode seg:ofs address Dos = 32-bit offset from DOSMEM_dosmem (aka DOSMEM_MemoryBase()) (unless it's above 1MB, then it's considered a linear pointer) (after the DOS restructure, DOSMEM_dosmem is always 0, which is probably why it worked for you) Linear = 32-bit linear pointer that you can dereference in Wine code I consider the "Dos" memory type pretty useless, there's almost never a reason to use it instead of linear memory or something... > What I read says that the stack's lowest address contains IP and the word > above that is the code segment for the return. IP:CS I'm not sure that I > could just point a segment:offset converting function at an address in that > format and get the linear address. Well, you can, as long as we stick to x86 (might be trickier if we were to write a CPU emulator, but I guess there would be lots of places to change then anyway). > I've done the reverse conversion be backing IP up 2 bytes. You have two versions of the Int3dHandler in your patch. One of them isn't changed... Anyway, if it helps, here's how I might have written your routine (without the error checking), if I thought that perhaps these interrupts are also used by win16 apps (otherwise the second CTX_SEG_OFF_TO_LIN(...) can be replaced with PTR_REAL_TO_LIN(stack[1], stack[0])) void FPU_ModifyCode(CONTEXT86 *context, BYTE Opcode) { WORD *stack = CTX_SEG_OFF_TO_LIN(context, context->SegSs, context->Esp) BYTE *code = CTX_SEG_OFF_TO_LIN(context, stack[1], stack[0]); code[-2] = 0x9b; code[-1] = Opcode; stack[0] -= 2; }

1 0

Re: GLU32 patch
by Marcus Meissner June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:52:34PM -0400, Vincent B?ron wrote: > The glu32 dll is now compliant with MSDN. It can be compiled with a > libGLU 1.1, but preferably by a libGLU 1.2. > > Changelog: > - Modified the glu32 prototypes to match MSDN. > - Made it work for libGLU 1.1 and 1.2. ... > -@ stdcall gluCheckExtension(str ptr) wine_gluCheckExtension Why is this function gone? And you will need to add checks for glu.h in configure.ac too. Ciao, Marcus

2 1

Problems converting DLL to unix SO with winelib
by List vmn June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

Hello Wine-devel, I finaly got the expected results from my simple tests to get a winelib DLL and test application to work. I am pretty sure that I am still doing something wrong in these tests !!!!! Can somebody say if the below setup is correct and if not what would be the correct way to create a winelib "dll" and then call it from a winelib executable. I am using wine-20020509. =>I start with a simple DLL file called mytest.c and use winemaker to create a libmytest.so bash#cd ~/mytest.dll bash#ls mytest.c bash#cat mytest.c //mytest.c #include <windows.h> #include <stdio.h> BOOL APIENTRY DllMain(HINSTANCE hinstDLL , DWORD fdwReason, LPVOID lpvReserved ) { printf("DllMain called\n"); return TRUE; } void usefullFunction() { printf("Usefull function got called\n"); } //end of mytest.c bash#winemaker --dll --nomfc . <output suppressed> bash#cat libmytest.spec name mytest type win32 mode dll init DllMain import kernel32.dll import ntdll.dll bash# ./configure <output suppressed> bash# make && make install gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o mytest.o mytest.c ld -r mytest.o -o libmytest.tmp.o strip --strip-unneeded libmytest.tmp.o LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/local/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" /usr/local/bin/winebuild -fPIC -L/usr/local/lib/wine -sym libmytest.tmp.o -o libmytest.spec.c -spec ./libmytest.spec gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o libmytest.spec.o libmytest.spec.c gcc -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libmytest.so mytest.o libmytest.spec.o -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm _list=""; for i in $_list; do (cd $i; make install) || exit 1; done _list=" "; for i in $_list; do install $i /usr/local/bin; done _list="libmytest.so"; for i in $_list; do install $i /usr/local/lib; done bash# #Now I have a /usr/local/lib/libmytest.so file \ #I think the next commands are wrong... bash# cd /usr/local/lib bash# cp libmytest.so wine/mytest.dll.so bash# ln -s wine/mytest.dll.so libmytest.dll.so bash# #This was done so that I can write \ # import mytest.dll \ # in a spec file and "register with wine" this so =>I now create a simple winelib application to call mytest called "callmytest" =>Call my test is defined in callmytest.c bash# cd ~/callmytest bash#ls callmytest.c bash# cat callmytest.c //start of callmytest.c #include "windows.h" extern usefullFunction(); int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE a,HINSTANCE b,LPSTR c ,int d) { usefullFunction(); } //end of callmytest.c bash# winemaker --guiexe -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll . <output suppressed> bash# cat callmytest.spec name callmytest type win32 mode guiexe init WinMain import kernel32.dll import ntdll.dll import mytest.dll bash# ./configure <output suppressed> bash# make gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o callmytest.o callmytest.c ld -r callmytest.o -o callmytest.tmp.o strip --strip-unneeded callmytest.tmp.o LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/local/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" /usr/local/bin/winebuild -fPIC -L/usr/local/lib/wine -sym callmytest.tmp.o -o callmytest.spec.c -spec ./callmytest.spec gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o callmytest.spec.o callmytest.spec.c gcc -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o callmytest.so callmytest.o callmytest.spec.o -lmytest.dll -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm test -f callmytest || ln -s /usr/local/bin/wine callmytest bash# ./callmytest DllMain called Usefull function got called DllMain called QUESTION 1: I think that adding -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll to winemaker --guiexe -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll . is wrong. QUESTION 2: Is DllMain called when the DLL is loaded and then unloaded ? Can anyone help me on this? Thanks, Miguel Feitosa

1 0

Problems converting DLL to unix SO with winelib
by mfeitosa June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

Hello Wine-devel, I finaly got the expected results from my simple tests to get a winelib DLL and test application to work. I am pretty sure that I am still doing something wrong in these tests !!!!! Can somebody say if the below setup is correct and if not what would be the correct way to create a winelib "dll" and then call it from a winelib executable. I am using wine-20020509. =>I start with a simple DLL file called mytest.c and use winemaker to create a libmytest.so bash#cd ~/mytest.dll bash#ls mytest.c bash#cat mytest.c //mytest.c #include <windows.h> #include <stdio.h> BOOL APIENTRY DllMain(HINSTANCE hinstDLL , DWORD fdwReason, LPVOID lpvReserved ) { printf("DllMain called\n"); return TRUE; } void usefullFunction() { printf("Usefull function got called\n"); } //end of mytest.c bash#winemaker --dll --nomfc . <output suppressed> bash#cat libmytest.spec name mytest type win32 mode dll init DllMain import kernel32.dll import ntdll.dll bash# ./configure <output suppressed> bash# make && make install gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o mytest.o mytest.c ld -r mytest.o -o libmytest.tmp.o strip --strip-unneeded libmytest.tmp.o LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/local/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" /usr/local/bin/winebuild -fPIC -L/usr/local/lib/wine -sym libmytest.tmp.o -o libmytest.spec.c -spec ./libmytest.spec gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o libmytest.spec.o libmytest.spec.c gcc -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o libmytest.so mytest.o libmytest.spec.o -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm _list=""; for i in $_list; do (cd $i; make install) || exit 1; done _list=" "; for i in $_list; do install $i /usr/local/bin; done _list="libmytest.so"; for i in $_list; do install $i /usr/local/lib; done bash# #Now I have a /usr/local/lib/libmytest.so file \ #I think the next commands are wrong... bash# cd /usr/local/lib bash# cp libmytest.so wine/mytest.dll.so bash# ln -s wine/mytest.dll.so libmytest.dll.so bash# #This was done so that I can write \ # import mytest.dll \ # in a spec file and "register with wine" this so =>I now create a simple winelib application to call mytest called "callmytest" =>Call my test is defined in callmytest.c bash# cd ~/callmytest bash#ls callmytest.c bash# cat callmytest.c //start of callmytest.c #include "windows.h" extern usefullFunction(); int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE a,HINSTANCE b,LPSTR c ,int d) { usefullFunction(); } //end of callmytest.c bash# winemaker --guiexe -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll . <output suppressed> bash# cat callmytest.spec name callmytest type win32 mode guiexe init WinMain import kernel32.dll import ntdll.dll import mytest.dll bash# ./configure <output suppressed> bash# make gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o callmytest.o callmytest.c ld -r callmytest.o -o callmytest.tmp.o strip --strip-unneeded callmytest.tmp.o LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/local/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH" /usr/local/bin/winebuild -fPIC -L/usr/local/lib/wine -sym callmytest.tmp.o -o callmytest.spec.c -spec ./callmytest.spec gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/local/include/wine -o callmytest.spec.o callmytest.spec.c gcc -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o callmytest.so callmytest.o callmytest.spec.o -lmytest.dll -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm test -f callmytest || ln -s /usr/local/bin/wine callmytest bash# ./callmytest DllMain called Usefull function got called DllMain called QUESTION 1: I think that adding -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll to winemaker --guiexe -imytest.dll -lmytest.dll . is wrong. QUESTION 2: Is DllMain called when the DLL is loaded and then unloaded ? Can anyone help me on this? Thanks, Miguel Feitosa

1 0

RE: Linux patch for supporting shortcuts and symlinks on VFAT
by Patrik Stridvall June 11, 2002

June 11, 2002

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [...] > > However it would be nice be nice to handle .lnk files as symlinks > > somehow. > > I'm not sure this is very useful, Well, just a feeling, but I have always been irritated about that the .lnk files are not real symlinks. Wine is not only supposed to be as good as Windows but also better if possible. > especially since few > symlinks will be > supported in any case. For instance in his proposal he ignores: > * all symlinks to absolute paths. That would be pretty much all > symlinks created under windows Yes. However you could have a drive table like echo /windows-c-drive > /proc/windows/drive/c echo /windows-d-drive > /proc/windows/drive/d So the kernel could do the look up. BTW this would also means that Wine could read /proc/windows/drive and map the drives. > * all UNC symlinks except those to \\localhost. But don't these paths > have a drive letter too? Even worse they have the first part after \\localhost should be the name of the share so that means that we need to have a series of /proc/windows/share directories or something as well... > * I guess he would also ignore the command line options > specified in shortcuts to executables > * and also the current directory Hmm. Well, that is a problem as well. Perhaps you could link to some sort of autogenerated shell script in /proc/windows/links say you access /mnt/c/test.lnk and you get a shell script in /proc/windows/links/mnt/c/test.lnk or something that /mnt/c/test.lnk symlinks to. > * and the icon of course. Which then means tools like konqueror or > nautilus cannot extract the icon either unless they make use of the > proposed ioctl hack. I don't consider this a problem. However solving the other problem is probably to ugly eventhough they are solvable in some meaning. > And if the goal is to be able to create symlinks on a filesystem that > does not support them, I believe the right way to do so would > be to have > a module sit on top of the file system that would do things > ala umsdos. > This would for instance allow one to also get things like ownership, > file permissions, device files, socket files, etc. And if you > are going > to use a VFAT filesystem as a regular Unix filesystem, having > permissions at least while in Linux seems like it would be a very good > thing. Indeed. It would be better if it was generalized somehow. Hmm... > > > * on Windows if you open("foo.lnk") you get the .lnk > files, not the > > > file it 'points' to. On Linux you would get the file it points to > > > instead which is a different behavior. > > > > True. However we could check if the extension is .lnk in OpenFile > > as friends and then call special funcitons like readlink to read the > > file. But it probably would be a too ugly hack to be worth it. > > Yes that's the soluti^H^H^H^H ugly hack that was suggested as a > workaround. It would probably involve an ioctl of some sort > though here > we are talking about reading the content of a file, not just > a couple of > metadata bits, not sure how ioctls handle such things (maybe > that's not > a problem, I'm not very familiar with ioctls). Doing it is not the problem. Accepting the overhead and the ugly hack is the real problem... > The other issue is that this workaround is not implemented > yet so we may > get stuck in a bad place for a while. True. > [...] > > Anyway, the big question seem to be whether we should > oppose the patch > > or not. It might could trouble for Wine is such a feature > exists some > > user might active it so we have to handle that case. > > It is proposed as the default behavior. This means it would likely end > up as the default in most distributions, so many users will > be hit by it > even if they did not activate it. > > I definitely oppose it. I believe it is not only harmful to Wine, but > also the wrong thing for Linux. As the default behavior I also oppose it. Unfortunely I very much fear that I won't be possible to do it in an acceptable way at all...

1 0