- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

howto use dll´s in C
by christian richter Feb. 14, 2001

Feb. 14, 2001

Hello, i have a dll which makes some string conversions, and i want to use it in my C-Programm in Linux, i found out that wine can execute win32 exe´s and so i thought it should be possible to use a winelib or something to use the dll-functions and to get back values from this dll . . please help me, i don´t want to convert the whole dll (written in M$ Visual Basic ) into C - sources .. thank you

2 1

Re: Registry patch
by Alexandre Julliard Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

davep <davep(a)cyw.uklinux.net> writes: > 123 calls RegQueryValueEx for the binary values with lpData set to NULL and > lpcbData non-NULL. RegQueryValueEx is supposed to return the size of the buffer > needed to hold the data, but Wine is returning the size of its initial buffer > (0xeb IIRC, sizeof(buffer)-sizeof(KEY_VALUE_PARTIAL_INFORMATION)). This causes > a crash when 123 immediately calls the same function again with a real buffer > address, presumably because 123 didn't allocate enough storage space. Could you please send me a +reg,+server trace of the offending calls? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: Registry patch
by Alexandre Julliard Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

davep <davep(a)cyw.uklinux.net> writes: > RegQueryValue() & RegEnumValue() > > We need to return the data length for REG_BINARY value types as well as strings > when called with a null buffer pointer. I don't understand why you need that. We already return the data length in all cases, including REG_BINARY. Could you elaborate a bit on exactly what is going wrong? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

running a daemon ?
by Philippe Moutarlier Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

Hi, this is not really a development question .. sorry . I am trying to see if I could use wine for running an lmgrd.exe daemon. How can I do this (and do you think it would work) ? When I just run > wine lmgrd.exe it starts running seemingly correctly and then exits instead of keeping running. Thanks Philippe

2 1

RE: Should Wine use alloca or not?
by Patrik Stridvall Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

> On Monday 12 February 2001 15:33, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > So perhaps we should debate whether we should use alloca or not. > > It seems this has been decided. Yes, see below. > I haven't examined or used > alloca in years, > so its possible that my personal objections don't apply in todays > implementations ( a quick test shows gcc on i386 _doesn't_ > use a function > call these days, for example, so thats no longer a valid > reason). So rather > than saying its evil, I'll tone down to it simply being > unesessary, and > continue to avoid it for (no doubt dubious) reasons of 'style'. I would rather say that the problem of using it, is that it, as Alexandre pointed out, introduces unrecovorable/undetectable errors if we allocate more than one page memory and if we only need a maximum of one page we can just allocate that or less if we know the exact maximum. The only problem I can see with this approach is that it uses an unnessary amount of stack space for recursive functions, but then I know of no such function in Wine and even if there is one, it is probably better to rewrite it as a non-recursive function anyway. So yes, the issue is decided.

1 0

Re: Should Wine use alloca or not?
by Jon Griffiths Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

On Monday 12 February 2001 15:33, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > So perhaps we should debate whether we should use alloca or not. It seems this has been decided. I haven't examined or used alloca in years, so its possible that my personal objections don't apply in todays implementations ( a quick test shows gcc on i386 _doesn't_ use a function call these days, for example, so thats no longer a valid reason). So rather than saying its evil, I'll tone down to it simply being unesessary, and continue to avoid it for (no doubt dubious) reasons of 'style'. Cheers, Jon -- "Don't wait for the seas to part, or messiahs to come, Dont you sit around and waste this chance ..." -Live tntjpgriff(a)tsnxt.co.uk , jon_p_griffiths(a)yahoo.com

1 0

Re: No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufA)
by Francois Gouget Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, David D. Hagood wrote: > Francois Gouget wrote: > > > David, > > > > Can you shed some light on the MAPS DUL stuff below? > > > > > Evidently, my ISP is implementing the dialup blocking feature of MAPS > (and I never even KNEW they were doing any filtering, from the volume of > spam I get!). Yep. They definitely should really have told you. I'm all for anti-spam measures (if you check my web site you'll see I even translated the 'Advertising on Usenet' FAQ to french a few years back) but I disagree with MAPS DUL. From what you say it seems pretty ineffective and I'm really irked by the following paragraph: >From http://mail-abuse.org/dul/intro.htm: > What gives you the right... > > ...to deny access to our own, privately owned, equipment? > > Our mail servers are private property, to allow others to use as we > see it. We have not found a legitimate reason for dial-up users to > talk directly to recipients' mail servers, especially since your ISP > provides a good mail server for you to use as a gateway. As such, > please respect our choice and use the equipment you're authorized to use. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sure they have the right to deny me access to their mail server, but to imply that I'm only allowed to connect to my ISP's mail server is bullshit. What next? Web site administrators are going to deny access to their site from dialup users if they don't go through their ISP's proxy? After all nobody gave you the autorisation to access their web server! Well, I cannot tell you that you should switch to another ISP, it would be too easy for me and hypocritical as I'm not sure I would do it if I were in your situation. I'll see if I can send them a complaint email (without it getting bounced). Oh. Damn. I cannot send this email to you, it will get bounced! Hmm, I'll spam the mailing list with an OT email then (last and only one hopefully). -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 1 + e ^ ( i * pi ) = 0

8 14

New EnumPrinterDataEx
by Ian Pilcher Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

While the great alloca debate rages on, here is a version of the patch that uses HeapAlloc for all dynamic allocation. (FWIW, my personal take is that if alloca causes the program to crash when it fails, then it's not really useful. I only used it, because the GNU libc documentation indicates that it returns NULL when it fails.) If no one has any other feedback on the patch, I'll submit it to wine- patches tomorrow. (So speak now or forever hold your peace.) -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher pilcher(a)concentric.net ======================================================================== --- ../wine-20010211cvs/include/winspool.h Sun Feb 11 19:26:47 2001 +++ include/winspool.h Mon Feb 12 09:32:58 2001 @@ -763,6 +763,25 @@ DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(PPROVIDOR_INFO_1) DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(LPPROVIDOR_INFO_1) +typedef struct _PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESA { + LPSTR pValueName; + DWORD cbValueName; + DWORD dwType; + LPBYTE pData; + DWORD cbData; +} PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESA, *PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESA; + +typedef struct _PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW { + LPWSTR pValueName; + DWORD cbValueName; + DWORD dwType; + LPBYTE pData; + DWORD cbData; +} PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW, *PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW; + +DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(PRINTER_ENUM_VALUES) +DECL_WINELIB_TYPE_AW(PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUES) + /* DECLARATIONS */ INT WINAPI DeviceCapabilitiesA(LPCSTR pDevice,LPCSTR pPort,WORD fwCapability, LPSTR pOutput, LPDEVMODEA pDevMode); @@ -1082,6 +1101,14 @@ BOOL WINAPI DeletePrintProvidorW(LPWSTR pName, LPWSTR pEnvironment, LPWSTR pPrintProvidorName); #define DeletePrintProvidor WINELIB_NAME_AW(DeletePrintProvidor) + +DWORD WINAPI EnumPrinterDataExA(HANDLE hPrinter, LPCSTR pKeyName, + LPBYTE pEnumValues, DWORD cbEnumValues, + LPDWORD pcbEnumValues, LPDWORD pnEnumValues); +DWORD WINAPI EnumPrinterDataExW(HANDLE hPrinter, LPCWSTR pKeyName, + LPBYTE pEnumValues, DWORD cbEnumValues, + LPDWORD pcbEnumValues, LPDWORD pnEnumValues); +#define EnumPrinterDataEx WINELIB_NAME_AW(EnumPrinterDataEx) --- ../wine-20010211cvs/dlls/winspool/winspool.drv.spec Sun Feb 11 19:26:47 2001 +++ dlls/winspool/winspool.drv.spec Mon Feb 12 09:32:58 2001 @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ @ stub EnumPrintProcessorDatatypesW @ stub EnumPrintProcessorsA @ stub EnumPrintProcessorsW +@ stub EnumPrinterDataA +@ stdcall EnumPrinterDataExA(long str ptr long ptr ptr) EnumPrinterDataExA +@ stdcall EnumPrinterDataExW(long wstr ptr long ptr ptr) EnumPrinterDataExW +@ stub EnumPrinterDataW @ stdcall EnumPrinterDriversA(str str long ptr long ptr ptr) EnumPrinterDriversA @ stdcall EnumPrinterDriversW(wstr wstr long ptr long ptr ptr) EnumPrinterDriversW @ stdcall EnumPrintersA(long ptr long ptr long ptr ptr) EnumPrintersA --- ../wine-20010211cvs/dlls/winspool/info.c Sun Feb 11 19:26:47 2001 +++ dlls/winspool/info.c Mon Feb 12 10:51:00 2001 @@ -2561,3 +2561,328 @@ return GetPrinterDataExW(hPrinter, PrinterDriverDataW, pValueName, pType, pData, nSize, pcbNeeded); } + +/* + * The Win32 doc says that RegCloseKey and HeapFree can fail, but it's hard to + * imagine why either of them would. And what is the calling function supposed + * to do about it anyway? + */ + +#define REGCLOSEKEY(X) \ +{ \ + DWORD ret; \ + \ + ret = RegCloseKey (X); \ + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) \ + WARN ("RegCloseKey returned %li\n", ret); \ +} + +#define HEAPFREE(X,Y,Z) \ +{ \ + if (HeapFree ((X), (Y), (Z)) == 0) \ + WARN ("HeapFree failed with code %li\n", GetLastError ()); \ +} + +/******************************************************************************* + * EnumPrinterDataExW [WINSPOOL.197] + */ +DWORD WINAPI EnumPrinterDataExW(HANDLE hPrinter, LPCWSTR pKeyName, + LPBYTE pEnumValues, DWORD cbEnumValues, + LPDWORD pcbEnumValues, LPDWORD pnEnumValues) +{ + HKEY hkPrinter, hkSubKey; + DWORD ret, dwIndex, cValues, cbMaxValueNameLen, + cbValueNameLen, cbMaxValueLen, cbValueLen, + cbBufSize, dwType; + LPWSTR lpValueName; + HANDLE hHeap; + PBYTE lpValue; + PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW ppev; + + TRACE ("%08x %s\n", hPrinter, debugstr_w (pKeyName)); + + if (pKeyName == NULL || *pKeyName == 0) + return ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER; + + ret = WINSPOOL_GetOpenedPrinterRegKey (hPrinter, &hkPrinter); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + TRACE ("WINSPOOL_GetOpenedPrinterRegKey (%08x) returned %li\n", + hPrinter, ret); + return ret; + } + + ret = RegOpenKeyExW (hkPrinter, pKeyName, 0, KEY_READ, &hkSubKey); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + REGCLOSEKEY (hkPrinter); + TRACE ("RegOpenKeyExW (%08x, %s) returned %li\n", hPrinter, + debugstr_w (pKeyName), ret); + return ret; + } + + REGCLOSEKEY (hkPrinter); + + ret = RegQueryInfoKeyW (hkSubKey, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, + &cValues, &cbMaxValueNameLen, &cbMaxValueLen, NULL, NULL); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + TRACE ("RegQueryInfoKeyW (%08x) returned %li\n", hkSubKey, ret); + return ret; + } + + TRACE ("RegQueryInfoKeyW returned cValues = %li, cbMaxValueNameLen = %li, " + "cbMaxValueLen = %li\n", cValues, cbMaxValueNameLen, cbMaxValueLen); + + if (cValues == 0) /* empty key */ + { + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + *pcbEnumValues = *pnEnumValues = 0; + return ERROR_SUCCESS; + } + + ++cbMaxValueNameLen; /* allow for trailing '\0' */ + + hHeap = GetProcessHeap (); + if (hHeap == (HANDLE) NULL) + { + ERR ("GetProcessHeap failed\n"); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + lpValueName = HeapAlloc (hHeap, 0, cbMaxValueNameLen * sizeof (WCHAR)); + if (lpValueName == NULL) + { + ERR ("Failed to allocate %li bytes from process heap\n", + cbMaxValueNameLen * sizeof (WCHAR)); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + lpValue = HeapAlloc (hHeap, 0, cbMaxValueLen); + if (lpValue == NULL) + { + ERR ("Failed to allocate %li bytes from process heap\n", cbMaxValueLen); + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValueName); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + TRACE ("pass 1: calculating buffer required for all names and values\n"); + + cbBufSize = cValues * sizeof (PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW); + + TRACE ("%li bytes required for %li headers\n", cbBufSize, cValues); + + for (dwIndex = 0; dwIndex < cValues; ++dwIndex) + { + cbValueNameLen = cbMaxValueNameLen; cbValueLen = cbMaxValueLen; + ret = RegEnumValueW (hkSubKey, dwIndex, lpValueName, &cbValueNameLen, + NULL, NULL, lpValue, &cbValueLen); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValue); HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValueName); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + TRACE ("RegEnumValueW (%li) returned %li\n", dwIndex, ret); + return ret; + } + + TRACE ("%s [%li]: name needs %li bytes, data needs %li bytes\n", + debugstr_w (lpValueName), dwIndex, + (cbValueNameLen + 1) * sizeof (WCHAR), cbValueLen); + + cbBufSize += (cbValueNameLen + 1) * sizeof (WCHAR); + cbBufSize += cbValueLen; + } + + TRACE ("%li bytes required for all %li values\n", cbBufSize, cValues); + + *pcbEnumValues = cbBufSize; + *pnEnumValues = cValues; + + if (cbEnumValues < cbBufSize) /* buffer too small */ + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValue); HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValueName); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + TRACE ("%li byte buffer is not large enough\n", cbEnumValues); + return ERROR_MORE_DATA; + } + + TRACE ("pass 2: copying all names and values to buffer\n"); + + ppev = (PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW) pEnumValues; /* array of structs */ + pEnumValues += cValues * sizeof (PRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW); + + for (dwIndex = 0; dwIndex < cValues; ++dwIndex) + { + cbValueNameLen = cbMaxValueNameLen; cbValueLen = cbMaxValueLen; + ret = RegEnumValueW (hkSubKey, dwIndex, lpValueName, &cbValueNameLen, + NULL, &dwType, lpValue, &cbValueLen); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValue); HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValueName); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + TRACE ("RegEnumValueW (%li) returned %li\n", dwIndex, ret); + return ret; + } + + cbValueNameLen = (cbValueNameLen + 1) * sizeof (WCHAR); + memcpy (pEnumValues, lpValueName, cbValueNameLen); + ppev[dwIndex].pValueName = (LPWSTR) pEnumValues; + pEnumValues += cbValueNameLen; + + /* return # of *bytes* (including trailing \0), not # of chars */ + ppev[dwIndex].cbValueName = cbValueNameLen; + + ppev[dwIndex].dwType = dwType; + + memcpy (pEnumValues, lpValue, cbValueLen); + ppev[dwIndex].pData = pEnumValues; + pEnumValues += cbValueLen; + + ppev[dwIndex].cbData = cbValueLen; + + TRACE ("%s [%li]: copied name (%li bytes) and data (%li bytes)\n", + debugstr_w (lpValueName), dwIndex, cbValueNameLen, cbValueLen); + } + + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValue); HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, lpValueName); + REGCLOSEKEY (hkSubKey); + return ERROR_SUCCESS; +} + +/******************************************************************************* + * EnumPrinterDataExA [WINSPOOL.196] + * + * The observant will note that this function returns ASCII strings in Unicode- + * sized buffers (for value names and values of type REG_SZ, REG_EXPAND_SZ, and + * REG_MULTI_SZ). This is what Windows 2000 does. + * + */ +DWORD WINAPI EnumPrinterDataExA(HANDLE hPrinter, LPCSTR pKeyName, + LPBYTE pEnumValues, DWORD cbEnumValues, + LPDWORD pcbEnumValues, LPDWORD pnEnumValues) +{ + INT len; + LPWSTR pKeyNameW; + DWORD ret, dwIndex, dwBufSize; + HANDLE hHeap; + LPSTR pBuffer; + + TRACE ("%08x %s\n", hPrinter, pKeyName); + + if (pKeyName == NULL || *pKeyName == 0) + return ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER; + + len = MultiByteToWideChar (CP_ACP, 0, pKeyName, -1, NULL, 0); + + hHeap = GetProcessHeap (); + if (hHeap == (HANDLE) NULL) + { + ERR ("GetProcessHeap failed\n"); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + pKeyNameW = HeapAlloc (hHeap, 0, len * sizeof (WCHAR)); + if (pKeyNameW == NULL) + { + ERR ("Failed to allocate %li bytes from process heap\n", + (LONG) len * sizeof (WCHAR)); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + if (MultiByteToWideChar (CP_ACP, 0, pKeyName, -1, pKeyNameW, len) == 0) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pKeyNameW); + TRACE ("MultiByteToWide Char (%s, %i) failed with code %li\n", pKeyName, + len, GetLastError ()); + return GetLastError (); + } + + ret = EnumPrinterDataExW (hPrinter, pKeyNameW, pEnumValues, cbEnumValues, + pcbEnumValues, pnEnumValues); + if (ret != ERROR_SUCCESS) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pKeyNameW); + TRACE ("EnumPrinterDataExW returned %li\n", ret); + return ret; + } + + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pKeyNameW); + + if (*pnEnumValues == 0) /* empty key */ + return ERROR_SUCCESS; + + dwBufSize = 0; + for (dwIndex = 0; dwIndex < *pnEnumValues; ++dwIndex) + { + PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW ppev = + &((PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW) pEnumValues)[dwIndex]; + + if (dwBufSize < ppev->cbValueName) + dwBufSize = ppev->cbValueName; + + if (dwBufSize < ppev->cbData && (ppev->dwType == REG_SZ || + ppev->dwType == REG_EXPAND_SZ || ppev->dwType == REG_MULTI_SZ)) + dwBufSize = ppev->cbData; + } + + TRACE ("Largest Unicode name or value is %li bytes\n", dwBufSize); + + pBuffer = HeapAlloc (hHeap, 0, dwBufSize); + if (pBuffer == NULL) + { + ERR ("Failed to allocate %li bytes from process heap\n", dwBufSize); + return ERROR_OUTOFMEMORY; + } + + for (dwIndex = 0; dwIndex < *pnEnumValues; ++dwIndex) + { + PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW ppev = + &((PPRINTER_ENUM_VALUESW) pEnumValues)[dwIndex]; + + len = WideCharToMultiByte (CP_ACP, 0, ppev->pValueName, + ppev->cbValueName / sizeof (WCHAR), pBuffer, dwBufSize, NULL, + NULL); + if (len == 0) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pBuffer); + TRACE ("WideCharToMultiByte (%s, %li) failed with code %li\n", + debugstr_w (ppev->pValueName), dwBufSize, GetLastError ()); + return GetLastError (); + } + + memcpy (ppev->pValueName, pBuffer, len); + + TRACE ("Converted '%s' from Unicode to ASCII\n", pBuffer); + + if (ppev->dwType != REG_SZ && ppev->dwType != REG_EXPAND_SZ && + ppev->dwType != REG_MULTI_SZ) + continue; + + len = WideCharToMultiByte (CP_ACP, 0, (LPWSTR) ppev->pData, + ppev->cbData / sizeof (WCHAR), pBuffer, dwBufSize, NULL, NULL); + if (len == 0) + { + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pBuffer); + TRACE ("WideCharToMultiByte (%s, %li) failed with code %li\n", + debugstr_w ((LPWSTR) ppev->pData), dwBufSize, + GetLastError ()); + TRACE (" (only first string of REG_MULTI_SZ printed)\n"); + return GetLastError (); + } + + memcpy (ppev->pData, pBuffer, len); + + TRACE ("Converted '%s' from Unicode to ASCII\n", pBuffer); + TRACE (" (only first string of REG_MULTI_SZ printed)\n"); + } + + HEAPFREE (hHeap, 0, pBuffer); + return ERROR_SUCCESS; +} + +#undef REGCLOSEKEY +#undef HEAPFREE

2 4

Re: winebuild ppc
by Ulrich Weigand Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

Josh DuBois wrote: > Well, on the ppc it seems that CRITICAL_SECTIONS which are initialized (they > get set to CRITICAL_SECTION_INIT a lot) fairly reliably get put on 2-byte > boundaries. I am not certain why this is the case. But this is the real question ;-) As I said, the *default* alignment of these structs is 4 byte. If they are in fact placed at 2-byte boundaries, I can see only a few possible explanations: - compiler bug - some weird interaction with Wine that causes the compiler to misbehave - *another* explicit alignment attribute somewhere The first two I consider rather unlikely (but certainly possible). The last point is the IMO most likely, however. Maybe there's a #pragma pack(1) section somewhere that isn't properly terminated or something similar. > I could perhaps try to change > all the instances of initialized critial sections to have their data copied into > them during an init routine, but that seems like yet another big weirdness. Or > maybe I can convince the compiler to stop aligning them strangely in the first > place. It should by default :-/ > The problem is that the instructions to implement Interlocked* functions on > the ppc require the destination of a store to be 4-byte aligned (so I want to align > the LockCount member). Sure. > I'm not sure, actually, how to be certain that regular > int's passed to these functions will be aligned, but I havn't seen problems (yet) > other than with the funny alignment of the CRITICAL_SECTION structs. Every 'int' is supposed to be 4-byte aligned, unless you override by some explicit alignment/packing statement. Bye, Ulrich

1 0

Re: Should Wine use alloca or not?
by Alexandre Julliard Feb. 13, 2001

Feb. 13, 2001

James Sutherland <jas88(a)cam.ac.uk> writes: > Last time this came up, someone had found the stack overflowing with a > large allocation - something like the char foo[10*1024] Patrik mentions - > and moved it to malloc(). At which point, someone else suggested turning > the malloc() into an alloca(), since it's faster... > > At the time, there were some fairly tight stack constraints in > places. Have these disappeared, or is alloca() still the wrong thing to > do??? The stack space is limited to 1Mb per thread (unless the application changed the defaults); it's not very tight, but it still means we cannot allocate arbitrary-sized data. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0