- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Documenting functions
by Bill Medland Aug. 1, 2001

Aug. 1, 2001

Getting back to what we are and are not allowed to do.. Suppose I am looking at a low-level function that I believe is only 75%-complete (the most important 75% of course and no disrespect meant to those who have got it that far). One of the problems with it is it is not totally clear EXACTLY what the function should do in some of its more esoteric modes. To me the first task is to define what it should do and that should be part of the documentation of the function. The particular function currently does not have any true documentation within the code; the best documentation of what it does is the code itself, and the best documentation of what it should do is the MSDN description of the function. 1. Should the function be completely defined in its header in the source code (which will probably make the header twice as large as the function) or should the details be put somewhere else. 2. Are we walking into copyright danger if the Wine documentation of the function is clearly based on the MSDN documentation, even if we acknowledge that. 3. Are we interested in that level of documentation? Bill

4 3

Re: Patch to fix the Linux 2.2 joysitck interface
by Alexandre Julliard July 31, 2001

July 31, 2001

David Hagood <wowbagger(a)sktc.net> writes: > To be done: the file descriptor is never closed under normal > circumstances - this might be a problem if a Wine app is opened and > accesses the stick, as the file descriptor will be open until that > process terminates. If this is viewed as a problem, it would be a simple > matter to add a device close function to the Wine driver to close the FD. Shouldn't this be done in the driver DRV_OPEN/DRV_CLOSE calls then? Any joystick experts out there? (BTW please use diff -u to generate patches, the default diff format is unreadable). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: RFC: Patch for making GrabPointer work
by Alexandre Julliard July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Jukka Heinonen <jhei(a)iki.fi> writes: > Storing old windows procedure in struct x11drv_win_data > would remove the worst race, but unless window > procedure update is atomic, it would not remove > all races. Since you have the window locked when changing the wnd proc the update will be atomic. The only problem I see is that your wnd proc might get called to process some other message, but you can solve this by having it chain to the previous wnd proc for all messages except the special one. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Relocatoion and ExceptionFilter problem?
by EriK W July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Now I finally made a wine , :) But I can't get any program to excute so far, mostly It is like bash-2.03# wine --winver win95 sol.exe err:seh:UnhandledExceptionFilter Couldn't start debugger (debugger/winedbg 134639312 24) (2) Read the Wine Developers Guide on how to set up winedbg or another debugger or bash-2.03# wine --winver win98 icq2000b.exe err:win32:do_relocations Standard load address for a Win32 program not available - patched kernel ? err:win32:do_relocations FATAL: Need to relocate F:\export\home\ericw\system\icq2000b.exe, but no relocation records present (stripped during link). Try to run that file directly ! wine: can't exec 'icq2000b.exe': error=21 This wine seems taste not good, :) Francois Gouget wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, EriK W wrote: > > > > What does not work? Do you have unicode/libwine_unicode.so or not? > > > Does the following command run or does it say it cannot find > > > libwine_unicode.so? > > > > > I does have the libwine_unicode.so > > but it just don't go to ~unicode directory to search for it, it always > > report " can't find it in /usr/local/lib" I don't know why, I am using bash, > > so I just simply copied libwine_unicode.so over to make it happy. > > I was wondering if it was the shell not exporting the environment > variable or something. Since you're using bash it should be all fine. > So you have to figure out why setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH does not work. > It's supposed to work. I'm 99.9% sure I did use it on Sparc Solaris so I > really don't see why it would not work on Solaris x86. Plus > LD_LIBRARY_PATH is such an important thing that it would be very > surprising if it really did not work and nothing else was broken in your > system. > > Did you try specifying an absolute path like: > LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/export/home/system/wine-20010629/unicode ./tools/winebuild/winebuild > > What does 'echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH' normally say? Is it empty? > > [...] > > take it out? > > Can I do that by commenting " > > LIBPROGRAMS = \ > > debugger/winedbg" ? > > The following patch should do that nicely: > > --- cut here --- > Index: Makefile.in > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/wine/debugger/Makefile.in,v > retrieving revision 1.24 > diff -u -r1.24 Makefile.in > --- Makefile.in 2000/12/29 05:38:00 1.24 > +++ Makefile.in 2001/07/27 01:39:15 > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > TOPOBJDIR = .. > SRCDIR = @srcdir@ > VPATH = @srcdir@ > -MODULE = winedbg > +MODULE = #winedbg > > C_SRCS = \ > break.c \ > --- Makefile.orig Thu Jul 26 19:03:36 2001 > +++ Makefile Thu Jul 26 19:00:53 2001 > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > TOPSRCDIR = .. > TOPOBJDIR = .. > SRCDIR = . > -MODULE = winedbg > +MODULE = #winedbg > > C_SRCS = \ > break.c \ > --- cut here --- > > -- > Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ > Broadcast message : fin du monde dans cinq minutes, repentez vous !

2 2

RE: Small OpenGL patch
by Patrik Stridvall July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

> It also puts the 'make_opengl' script in line with the latest > modification > to the spec file. It also changes the OPENGL32.@ to OPENGL.@ > as per Patrik's > modifications in 'make_opengl'. Arrgghhh! I just saw that I didn't do the same change in the script as in the .c files (I didn't run the script, since it worked badly last time I tried with my OpenGL files). Braino. :-( It should of course be OPENGL32.@ not OPENGL.(a). The .c files was correct as they were. Sorry to cause you problems but can you fix the script and rerun on your OpenGL files and resubmit. > PS: god I hate Perl... I may well rewrite 'make_opengl' in > Python one of > these days :-) Whats wrong with Perl? I write applications sometimes in Perl and sometimes in Python, and I like them both and a dislike somethings about each language as well. Of course Perl is a little more difficult to learn but still. PS. You will se one of the advantages of Perl if you add use strict; at the top of the script. Of course after that you will have to declare all variable to it keeps the number of bugs down.

1 0

RE: winapi update
by Patrik Stridvall July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

> > In short, please apply it, they facillitates using the > > winapi tools alot and might make more people actually > > use them. They don't hurt anything. > > The problem is if we make it part of the default make install all Wine > distributions will include these non-functional (from the user POV) > scripts, and I don't think this is a good idea. That is true. > So I have applied it > but it doesn't run by default; developers who want it should run make > install in the tools/winapi directory. Ah, of course. Good idea. Thanks. This brings to mind the fact that three different kinds of "users": 1. Ordinary users 2. Wine/Winelib developers 3. Winelib application developers that need different kinds of tools installed. Not that I have any good solution to the problem. And not something that really is a problem either. Is was just something that occured to me. Oh well. Never mind.

1 0

Re: winapi update
by Alexandre Julliard July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > A full install is largely meaningless since the winapi tools are made > for work on a Wine source tree, so making them independant of such > a tree is largely meaningless. Agreed. > In short, please apply it, they facillitates using the > winapi tools alot and might make more people actually > use them. They don't hurt anything. The problem is if we make it part of the default make install all Wine distributions will include these non-functional (from the user POV) scripts, and I don't think this is a good idea. So I have applied it but it doesn't run by default; developers who want it should run make install in the tools/winapi directory. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

broken misc/version.c (patch 1.43 -> 1.44) WIN95 value in version16
by Ladislav Sladecek July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Two days ago a 16 bit application, which I use, started to complain about unknown windows version. After I rgressed to 1.43 of misc/version.c, everything was OK. I found the problem in the GetVersionInfo value that you changed at line 75 of the file. My windows 95 returns 0xC0000004 in WIN32 and 0x07005F03 in WIN16. You changed the 16bit value from 0x7005F03 to 0x7000304. Can you please check this? Do you have some docs? I think that we that we are both right; the value probably depends on longitude, altitude, and Windows language version. Mine iWindows 95 is Czech Edition, SR2. Regards Ladislav Sladecek

1 0

RE: winapi update
by Patrik Stridvall July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > I have resent winapi_install patch. > > > > While it probably that you didn't apply > > it because of lack of time I resend > > for your convinience. If not please > > explain. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are not actually installing > anything, only a script that needs the Wine source tree to work. That is a correct conclusion. > I don't really see the point. The point is that when you are in some sub directory of a wine tree, you can just write winapi_check or make_filter and whatever and it will call the correct version of the tool. Instead of having to type, if you are in dlls/winsock. ../../tools/winapi_check Sure you can currently do make winapi_check or make filter and adding winapi_{extract,fixup} is trivial but giving arguments through make is a little awkward. That why I wrote a few script to fix this and now when I have a tool (make_filter) that could possibly enjoy a wider use I decided to make a formalized "install" for them. > If you want to install something it should > be a complete installation that works without external files (not that > I suggest doing that for winapi_check, at least not by default). A full install is largely meaningless since the winapi tools are made for work on a Wine source tree, so making them independant of such a tree is largely meaningless. Well they actually are indendent of the specific tree they where install from. They do not reference to it at all. They use the current directory to find the real winapi tools in that tree. They will work equally well with any tree (of a later date than your hopefull application of the patch that is). They are as they are by design, not by mistake, and complete installation of them is almost completly meaningless. Sure there might be future winapi tools worthy of a complete install, a future tool for automatical generation of .spec files from any Winelib application, that we talked about some time ago, comes to mind, but I'm not there quite yet. I have begun to implement simple typedef parsing but it doesn't work 100% yet. In short, please apply it, they facillitates using the winapi tools alot and might make more people actually use them. They don't hurt anything.

1 0

Re: winapi update
by Alexandre Julliard July 30, 2001

July 30, 2001

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > I have resent winapi_install patch. > > While it probably that you didn't apply > it because of lack of time I resend > for your convinience. If not please > explain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are not actually installing anything, only a script that needs the Wine source tree to work. I don't really see the point. If you want to install something it should be a complete installation that works without external files (not that I suggest doing that for winapi_check, at least not by default). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0