- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Wrc patch
by kenon＠go2.pl May 28, 2001

May 28, 2001

Hi, This patch is an answer for "Call for volunteers". I hope it fixes : "wrc fails on preprocessed files" #115: http://wine.codeweavers.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115 Maciek Changelog * tools/wrc/ppy.y Maciek Kaliszewski <kenon(a)go2.pl> Added better GCC-style #line directive handling. --

1 0

Enabling backing store
by David Hagood May 27, 2001

May 27, 2001

Has any thought been given to enabling backing store on Wine's windows? As it stands now, when you obscure a Wine window, it forces the Windows app to redraw the screen. Many times this is not needed. Perhaps a configuration option to allow certain apps to have backing store on would be useful. I know that up until a few months ago, it was possible to go into wnd.c and change the default from NotUseful to WhenMapped and things seemed to work well. However, the structure of the X driver has changed, and a simple patch is no longer possible.

1 0

Re: X Error with latest Wine and Notes
by Ian Pilcher May 27, 2001

May 27, 2001

David.Goodenough(a)dga.co.uk wrote: > > I have noticed that with the latest Wine (May drop) I have started to get X > Errors. This typically happens as a dialog is being dismissed. > > The latest of these errors read:-- > > X Error of failed request: BadWindow (invalid Window parameter) > Major opcode of failed request: 12 (X_ConfigureWindow) > Resource if in failed request: 0x1c24350 > Serial number of failed request: 9920 > Current serial number in output stream: 9922 > > I get the feeling, although I can not prove it, that this may be timing > related, as it tends to happen when I am a bit quick completing the dialog. > The other odd thing that happens when this occurs is that a second copy of > the window, not the detail face of the window, just the window and its > frame controls, is drawn slightly down and right of the original window, > then it blows and Notes hangs. > > I had not noticed this behaviour before switching to the May drop. There > are no other console messages that are out of the ordinary set that I have > been reporting for a while. > > Is this a known problem? David - I have also seen this problem, but I have no idea what causes it. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher ian.pilcher(a)home.com ========================================================================

1 0

Q: anybody using Exceed on NT4 as X server for wine?
by Heiko Nardmann May 26, 2001

May 26, 2001

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is there anybody out there who uses Exceed on NT4 as the X server to display wine applications (like winemine from examples) which have been started on Linux? If yes are did you try 20010510 snapshot (or CVS) to run your applications? If yes could you provide me with your configuration files? I am still not able to start winemine since snapshot 20010418 (20010326 works fine). - -- Heiko Nardmann (Dipl.-Ing.), h.nardmann(a)secunet.de, Software Development secunet Security Networks AG - Sicherheit in Netzwerken (www.secunet.de) Weidenauer Str. 223-225, D-57076 Siegen Tel. : +49 271 48950-13, Fax : +49 271 48950-50 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7DgpMpm53PRScYygRAn6cAKDaQl3Tm4l/sIe9cQoRbdwo7vf7bwCg8gm5 38OwXBWHUxJVc1ZV91iywRY= =CjPM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: AFM files no longer required
by Alexandre Julliard May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > Here's a thought. How about creating a data subdirectory for the Post- > Script driver (i.e. dlls/wineps/data). The data could then be put in > separate files in that directory without confusing things. (The data > isn't interdependent from a build point of view, just from a main- > tenance point of view.) > > I don't know the Makefile magic necessary to do this, but if someone > could step forward with that piece, I suspect it would address both of > our concerns. > > What do you think? That's certainly a viable solution yes. If you send me a patch implementing the separate files I'll do the Makefile magic. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: AFM files no longer required
by Alexandre Julliard May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > I actually gave quite a bit of thought to the large file issue before > submitting it, and I would agree with you if there were any functional > code in the file. Because it's entirely data, and it's heavily > interdependent, I really think that one file is better. I disagree. If the data is so interdependent that you cannot split the file, you are doing something wrong IMO. And in fact splitting it will help enforce a clean data structure, which is a major advantage. > From a build point of view, gcc has no problem at all with the file. In > fact it compiles much faster than many of Wine's functional files. I know some older versions of gcc had problems with large data structures, using exponential memory to compile them or something like that. > If a > target compiler (does Wine build with anything other than gcc?) does have > a problem with it, I will yield to necessity. Until that happens, how- > ever, I believe that the practical benefit of maintainability outweighs > stylistic concerns. (After all, it's not like anyone will ever need to > read all the way through the file to understand it, as is the case with > functional code.) You may not need to read every single line, but you still need to go through it if you want to understand the structure (this is how I noticed it was too large...). So please consider splitting it. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: AFM files no longer required
by Ian Pilcher May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

Forgot to cc wine-devel. Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > You should really split it into separate files, a 40,000 lines file is > a bit too much. Also all this data must be constant and in a read-only > section, it's eating 400k of data space right now. I actually gave quite a bit of thought to the large file issue before submitting it, and I would agree with you if there were any functional code in the file. Because it's entirely data, and it's heavily interdependent, I really think that one file is better. (As the person most likely be tweaking the data in the near future, I can tell you that having a single file to edit, albeit a long one, will be heck of a lot easier than having 39 separate files, and isn't that really the point?) >From a build point of view, gcc has no problem at all with the file. In fact it compiles much faster than many of Wine's functional files. If a target compiler (does Wine build with anything other than gcc?) does have a problem with it, I will yield to necessity. Until that happens, how- ever, I believe that the practical benefit of maintainability outweighs stylistic concerns. (After all, it's not like anyone will ever need to read all the way through the file to understand it, as is the case with functional code.) I would like to make the data constant, but that would require major surgery to afm.c, which is more than I can take on at this point. Keep in mind that the same amount of memory is being used currently; it's just dynamically allocated as the AFM files are read in. > > I'm guessing that you have a script to generate all this; could you > please consider submitting it? This way other people can make changes > too. > I have attached the two programs I use to generate agl.c. I have always intended to submit them, but didn't know where in the source tree to put them. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher ian.pilcher(a)home.com ========================================================================

1 0

Re: Small fixes in controls/menu.c
by gerard patel May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

At 03:42 AM 22/05/2001 +0200, you wrote: >In attachement WIN.3_11 you can see listing generated under windows 3.11. >( Borland WinSight ) (If you want get a listing generated under win98/95 - no >problem , but I'll have to format&reinstall ,because this copy of windows >stopped functioning about 6 months ago ) >WINE_SETWINPOS ,WINE_NCALC- under wine with first and second version of >patch. >I think WINE_NCALC is more similar to WIN.3_11 . There is nothing looking like a SetWindowPos call between WM_INITMENU and WM_INITPOPUPMENU, yes. But as Alexandre Julliard was pointing, it does not mean that something like calling NC_HandleNCCalcSize is done. >I'm wondering why menu->Height == 0. I'll investigate it. height = 0 because at some point the menu has been changed; this is a Wine flag to signal that the menu dimensions have to be calculated again. The problem with my test app without my original patch is that the menu sizes are not calculated at this point so the mouse clicks are ignored Btw, I have downloaded several of the availables app on your web site and I don't see anything wrong with menus; IIRC I have tried 7.5 for Win3.11, and trial versions 8 and 9 (32 bits). Is it with the main menu that you see this problem ? Gerard

2 1

Re: Unused OPTIONS variable in configure.in
by Alexandre Julliard May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

Fran=E7ois Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > I noticed that OPTIONS is not used anymore in 'configure.in'. I > believe it may have been used to store the --enable-* stuff at one ti= me > but AFAIU this is now stored in 'config.h'. So I propose to remove it > altogether. Or is it set as a side effect of some standard autoconf > macro on some exotic system? It's here so that you can specify extra flags that configure doesn't know about, by doing OPTIONS=3D-Dfoo ./configure. This can be useful in some cases. --=20 Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: AFM files no longer required
by Alexandre Julliard May 25, 2001

May 25, 2001

Ian Pilcher <ian.pilcher(a)home.com> writes: > I decided to put all of the data into dlls/wineps/agl.c, since changing > the glyph list data without regenerating the font metrics data would > cause things to break in extremely bizarre ways. (Well, it will once I > actually use the glyph names.) You should really split it into separate files, a 40,000 lines file is a bit too much. Also all this data must be constant and in a read-only section, it's eating 400k of data space right now. I'm guessing that you have a script to generate all this; could you please consider submitting it? This way other people can make changes too. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0