wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

10 participants
84459 discussions

RE: Configure question
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Still I think the code should verify that any assumptions > > made str really true, if possible. Like: > > > > #if defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) || defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) || > > defined(HAVE_GETPWENT) > > # if !(defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) && > > defined(HAVE_GETPWENT)) > > # error All or none of the functions getpwuid, getpwnam > and getpwent are > > assumed to exist > > # endif > > #endif > > There is absolutely no reason to do that, because we shouldn't assume > anything like that. As I said, if you use getpwnam() you check for > HAVE_GETPWNAM; whether getpwuid() also exists or not is completely > irrelevant. Well, the problem is it is possible that you in order to fail gracefully needs to do different things depending on whether some other function exists or not. OK, the functions meantioned above are not likely to have side effect or something else that effect the other functions in any relevant way. But there might be function pairs, tripples etc that does. Sure you can say that since any function might fail any code should always be able to handle a missing function as well since it in some abstract meaning it sufficiently similar to a normal failure. But regardless, I think it is good to make it clear that he or she who wrote expects certain things to be true and things might not work if they are not true. I somebody hits the "assertion" they can audit the code and if it seems that it doesn't matter they can modify the "assertion" to whatever is proper in the light of the new different enviroment. If it does matter they will modify the code accordingly... Somehow this seems much better than just hoping that the orginal programmer handled all error cases correctly...

1 0

RE: Configure question
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck(a)fujitsu-siemens.com> writes: > > > Very true. Perhaps the practical way would be to assume > > HAVE_GETPWUID == HAVE_GETPWNAM and see whether someone with > > a really strange platform complains (but see below). > > There's no reason to do that, it's trivial to check for both. If you > use getpwnam() check for HAVE_GETPWNAM, if you use getpwuid() check > for HAVE_GETPWUID. Simple, logical, and works even on strange > platforms. Of course. It was so obvious that I missed it. :-) Still I think the code should verify that any assumptions made str really true, if possible. Like: #if defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) || defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) || defined(HAVE_GETPWENT) # if !(defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) && defined(HAVE_GETPWENT)) # error All or none of the functions getpwuid, getpwnam and getpwent are assumed to exist # endif #endif

2 1

RE: Stub implementation of CABINET.DLL
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> >However, when I saw that not much happend despite > >getting code from cabextrect under LGPL I thought > >that perhaps people were having trouble on how > >to create a new DLL in Wine and how to extract > >the declarations from the Microsoft header without > >creating a derived work. I have done it many > >times before so thought why not do it... > > > >So I very happy that somebody is intrested in continuing. > > > >PS. If anybody have some other DLL that they wish to implement > >but don't now how to do it, don't hesitate to ask me to > >create a stub DLL with related headers. > > If it is not too much effort, could you elaborate on the > derived work issue. I have been thinking about trying to > stub out, then work at implementing, a particular component. > Rather than have someone else do the work, I am more > interested in learning about doing it myself, and about > any issues (legal and technical) involved. > I am not asking for a complete howto here, but even a > summary of the highlights would be quite valuable (to me > at least). First of all copyright doesn't protection facts or ideas only a specific (and unique) expression of facts and ideas. This is normally called a work. Specifically it doesn't protect any underlying functionally inherent or derivable from the work. This is normally called the implementation of the functionallity. Even more specifically it doesn't protect the way interaction with any functionallity, that is possible to derived from the work, is done. This is normally called the interface to the functionallity. Header files for the most part defines interfaces; more specifically constant declarations (read: defines), function declarations, type declarations and. So all such things are free for taking. However netherless the less, the header file is not entirely free of possible protected expression. Specifically: 1. Formatting 2. Comments 3. Inline functions and complex macros I will address each them in turn. Formatting is not normally any problem since there are not that many way to format C declarations, none of which is likely to be unique to Microsoft, let alone expressive. Still I always format the new file in a way I personally like, just in case. Comments are are probably the largest proplem. They are not strictly part of the interface so if you are unsure you can just remove them. In most cases, in fact the intresting cases, however they contains facts about the interface. Note however I said _contains_ facts not are facts. Part of them might be protected expression so we have to be careful here. Again, note that in order to be protected an expression have to unique as well as expressive. Most short sentences are neither unique, nor are they expressive, they just explain the facts in some straight forward way. Still if the not formulated in a way I as well would use the express myself I rewrite them. As for longer sentences and specificially multi sentence paragraphs. I usually delete or reformulate and often shorten it using my own words. The comments are, as I said, not strictly needed in for the header file to work. Inline function and complex macros can be a little tricky. However they are usually rare so rewriting them in a way I would have written it is not that much work and functinallity in itself is I said explain above not protected by copyright.

1 0

RE: Get rid of W->A calls: LoadImageW
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> > Index: wine/windows/cursoricon.c [snip] > > - if (!screen_dc) screen_dc = CreateDCA( "DISPLAY", > NULL, NULL, NULL ); > > + if (!screen_dc) screen_dc = CreateDCW( DISPLAYW, [snip] > I don't see the point of this at all. Why does it matter that we're > calling CreateDCA here? it's not as if we're losing information by > converting a Unicode to an Ascii string. Policy reason: "No Unicode function should call an ASCII function if a Unicode variant of that function exists." But sure semantically speaking it might not make any difference in this case.

1 0

Re: problem with treeview
by steve.lustbader＠philips.com 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Here's the output from +treeview: <App starting up> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_Register trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_Register trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_Register <I press button to open dialog containing treeview> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_Create wnd 0x2006a, style 40010027 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFirstVisible (nil): <null item> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFont 0x3a6a 0 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_Create wnd 0x20068, style 40010027 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFirstVisible (nil): <null item> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFont 0x3a6a 0 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_DeleteItem TVI_ROOT trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFirstVisible (nil): <null item> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_DeleteItem TVI_ROOT trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_ValidItem invalid item (nil) trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_SetFirstVisible (nil): <null item> trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_InsertItemA parent 0x41230a98 position 0xffff0002: '<callback>' trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_DoSetItem setting callback, item 0x41232060 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_InsertItemA new item 0x41232060; parent 0x41230a98, mask 5 trace:treeview:TREEVIEW_GetNextItem flags:3, item 0x41232060;returns (nil) wine: Unhandled exception, starting debugger... "Dustin Navea" <Speeddymon@ev1. To: Steve Lustbader/ANR/MS/PHILIPS@AMEC net> <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> cc: 11/19/2002 03:35 Subject: Re: problem with treeview PM Classification: Try running wine with --debugmsg +treeview and post that somewhere to look at.. -Dustin ----- Original Message ----- From: <steve.lustbader(a)philips.com> To: <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: problem with treeview > My app calls TreeView_InsertItem, which leads to a crash in ntdll.dll. > A backtrace is available at http://www.lustbader.net/bt.txt, and I can > provide any other debug output if anyone thinks it will help. > TreeView_InsertItem is called like this: > > TVITEM tviFoo; > tviFoo.mask = TVIF_TEXT | TVIF_PARAM; > tviFoo.pszText = LPSTR_TEXTCALLBACK; > tviFoo.lParam = (LPARAM)pFoo; //pFoo is guaranteed to be non-NULL > TVINSERTSTRUCT tvinsFoo; > tvinsFoo.hParent = TVI_ROOT; > tvinsFoo.hInsertAfter = TVI_LAST; > tvinsFoo.item = tviFoo; > HTREEITEM hTreeFoo = TreeView_InsertItem(m_hWndUserTree, &tvinsFoo); > > Any ideas? > > -Steve > > >

1 0

RE: Configure question
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> Am Die, 2002-11-19 um 15.17 schrieb Patrik Stridvall: > > > One thing that you shouldn't assume is for example that > > if a function exists its reentrant variant exists as well. > Sure, got that. > > > And yes, you really should use the > > reentrent variant if present as well as having an > > alternative implementation if not. > > Hmm - really really always? This generates messy code, > and a lot of effort for very rare cases. Bad formulation. What I meant is that the code shouldn't depend on the existance of the reentrant function since it is not that unlikely that some platforms might only have the non reentrent one only. Still, I think we might need such a strict policy regardless. > I think we need a compromise, something in the line of either > > - a) use non-reentrant functions, protecting them with a critical > section (IMO ok for rarely called functions) or That is potentially slow since it uses locks. Not that likely to be a problem with the getpw* functions though but still... > - b) use only reentrant and treat the case where these aren't > available like the case where the respective functions aren't > available at all. No, not a good solution. There are rational reasons to not have the reentrent variants. > Of course b) would only be viable if a sufficiently large portion of > systems that support the non-reentrant variant support the > reentrant one > as well. I have no idea whether that's the case for the getpwXYZ > functions. If are on a embedded platform it is not entirely unlikely that it is possible to configure and compile the C library to not handle reentrancy issues in order to optimize for space. In fact it might make sense be able compile Winelib as not supporting reentrency either. It is a post 1.0 issue IMHO, but we should have a policy planning for that possiblity nether the less. So strictly speaking, we should IMHO do #ifdef HAVE_GETPWUID_R /* Use getpwuid_r */ #elsif defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) # ifdef _REENTRANT /* Lock. Use getpwuid. Unlock */ # else /* Use getpwuid */ # endif #else /* Fail gracefully */ #endif However adding the #ifdef _REENTRANT is a post 1.0 issue IMHO. > > As to the implict existance question: I'm not sure. > > First of all, to answer the related question: > > Should you have a alternative implementation for > > defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && !defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM)? > > > > IMHO the answer is no. It is not worth the effort to > > support hypotetical platforms unless we can verify the > > existance of one. > > Very true. Perhaps the practical way would be to assume > HAVE_GETPWUID == HAVE_GETPWNAM and see whether someone with > a really strange platform complains (but see below). Assume yes, however I think the should also verify as below. > > I suggest that we should detect the presence or absence > > of ALL function we use that is verified not to exist on > > some platform and have for example code like > > > > #if defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) || defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) || > > defined(HAVE_GETPWENT) > > # if (defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) + defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) + > > defined(HAVE_GETPWENT)) == 3 > > # define __HAVE_GETPW > > # else > > # error All or none of the functions getpwuid, getpwnam > and getpwent are > > assumed to exist > > # endif > > #endif > > > > in order to formalize the assumptions and generate a common > define to use in > > the code. > > Well I'd say that for a start we could simply do something like > > /* CAUTION: If there turns out to be some insane platform that has > * getpwuid() but not getpwnam() and getpwent(), this must be > * improved. > */ > #define __HAVE_GETPW HAVE_GETPWUID > > This would keep bloat out of configure in the first place, while > providing a generic __HAVE_GETPW macro for possible later use. As Alexandre said, having a special define is completely unnessary. Just test for existance of whatever function when you call it.

1 0

problem with treeview
by steve.lustbader＠philips.com 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

My app calls TreeView_InsertItem, which leads to a crash in ntdll.dll. A backtrace is available at http://www.lustbader.net/bt.txt, and I can provide any other debug output if anyone thinks it will help. TreeView_InsertItem is called like this: TVITEM tviFoo; tviFoo.mask = TVIF_TEXT | TVIF_PARAM; tviFoo.pszText = LPSTR_TEXTCALLBACK; tviFoo.lParam = (LPARAM)pFoo; //pFoo is guaranteed to be non-NULL TVINSERTSTRUCT tvinsFoo; tvinsFoo.hParent = TVI_ROOT; tvinsFoo.hInsertAfter = TVI_LAST; tvinsFoo.item = tviFoo; HTREEITEM hTreeFoo = TreeView_InsertItem(m_hWndUserTree, &tvinsFoo); Any ideas? -Steve

2 1

dlls/cabinet : CVS repository problem ?
by Sylvain Petreolle 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

When I updated my cvs tree (update -APd), I had problems with dlls/cabinet. It didn't add the files created by this patch : http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-cvs/2002/11/0179.html The directory itself is unknown in the repository : [syl@snoop dlls]$ cvs update 2>&1 |tee cvslog ? cabinet ? cvslog cvs server: Updating . M Makefile.in cvs server: Updating advapi32 cvs server: Updating advapi32/tests ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

2 2

msvcrt vs std incl
by Dimitrie O. Paun 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Hi guys, Here's a small test program: #include <windows.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <assert.h> int main() { printf("sizeof(wchar_t)=%d\n", sizeof(wchar_t)); return 0; } And I want to compile this with our msvcrt headers. Look what happens: [dimi@dimi wine]$ gcc -nostdinc -fshort-wchar -I /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt -I /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include test.c In file included from /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/windows.h:38, from test.c:1: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winbase.h:23:20: stdarg.h: No such file or directory In file included from /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/windows.h:38, from test.c:1: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winbase.h:1257: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winbase.h:1258: parse error before "va_list" In file included from /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/windows.h:40, from test.c:1: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winuser.h:23:20: stdarg.h: No such file or directory In file included from /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/windows.h:40, from test.c:1: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winuser.h:4459: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/winuser.h:4460: parse error before "va_list" In file included from test.c:2: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:13:20: stdarg.h: No such file or directory In file included from test.c:2: /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:135: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:175: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:176: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:177: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:184: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:211: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:212: parse error before "va_list" /home/dimi/dev/wine/wine.src/include/msvcrt/stdio.h:213: parse error before "va_list" test.c:4:20: assert.h: No such file or directory test.c: In function `main': test.c:8: `wchar_t' undeclared (first use in this function) test.c:8: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once test.c:8: for each function it appears in.) [dimi@dimi wine]$ First off, are we supposed to die on the va_list stuff? Second, why is wchar_t undeclared? -- Dimi. P.S. Please do not ask why so many includes, I know they are not needed, but it should work, right?

5 11

Question: domain name
by Martin Wilck 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Using a default domain name in Wine would be beneficial for certain Netapi functions. While it's no big deal to add a config option for that, there is the Windows registry value DefaultDomainName in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon which could be used for exactly that purpose. Is it better to - use a Wine config key, - use the above MS key, - or use both, the Wine key overriding the MS one if set? Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck@Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

2 1

RE: Configure question
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> I am thinking about some netapi32 improvements where I'd need to call > the functions of the getpw/getgr family: getpwnam(), getpwent(), > getgrent(), etc. > > Configure checks for the "pwd.h" header and getpwuid(). Must > I add more > checks for all the functions I use, or is it ok to assume that > getpwuid() presence implies getpwnam() presence? Good question. I'm don't think we have any policy concerning this. Perhaps we should have. One thing that you shouldn't assume is for example that if a function exists its reentrant variant exists as well. For example that fact getpwnam exists doesn't imply that getpwnam_r exists. And yes, you really should use the reentrent variant if present as well as having an alternative implementation if not. As to the implict existance question: I'm not sure. First of all, to answer the related question: Should you have a alternative implementation for defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && !defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM)? IMHO the answer is no. It is not worth the effort to support hypotetical platforms unless we can verify the existance of one. To return to the original question: I suggest that we should detect the presence or absence of ALL function we use that is verified not to exist on some platform and have for example code like #if defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) || defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) || defined(HAVE_GETPWENT) # if (defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) + defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM) + defined(HAVE_GETPWENT)) == 3 # define __HAVE_GETPW # else # error All or none of the functions getpwuid, getpwnam and getpwent are assumed to exist # endif #endif in order to formalize the assumptions and generate a common define to use in the code. Comments? Suggestions?

3 2

Re: CoInitialize
by steve.lustbader＠philips.com 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

>> On 13 Nov 2002 at 14:39, steve.lustbader(a)philips.com wrote: >> >> > One of the threads in my app calls CoInitialize, expecting it >> > to return S_OK (in fact, it's followed by an assert statement >> > requiring that it returns S_OK). When I run it in Wine, however, >> > CoInitialize returns S_FALSE, implying that this thread has >> > already initialized the COM library. Other threads call >> > CoInitialize, but this is the first time that this thread calls it. >> > Does Wine initialize COM differently from Windows? Are the other >> > threads' calls to CoInitialize screwing up this thread's call? > >Sort of, the problem is that Wine doesn't support apartments yet, so it >doesn't try to keep track of the threads that has called CoInitialize. > Does this mean that COM isn't being initialized properly for the calling thread, or only that it appears not to be initialized properly? -Steve

2 1

RE: WineHQ FTP (ftp://ftp.winehq.com/pub/wine/)
by Kye Lewis 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Hi, Has started working again for me - but I am still Puzzled as to what the problem was! Thanks, Kye Lewis kyethespy(a)liquid2k.com -----Original Message----- From: wine-devel-admin(a)winehq.com [mailto:wine-devel-admin@winehq.com] On Behalf Of Gustavo Junior Alves Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:49 PM To: Keith Matthews Cc: wine devel < Subject: Re: WineHQ FTP (ftp://ftp.winehq.com/pub/wine/) The command LPRT is used for ipv6 over FTP, but I don't know any FTP servers that allow this command, maybe oftpd. Keith Matthews wrote: >On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:29:09 +1100 >"Kye Lewis" <kyethespy(a)liquid2k.com> wrote: > > > >>Hi, >> >>While trying to connect to the wineHQ ftp site, I am getting the >>following error with IE6: >> >>200 Type set to A. >>500 Illegal PORT command. >>500 LPRT not understood >> >> >> > >Don't know about the last error, but the illegal PORT is typically seen >when trying to use active FTP from behind a firewall that does not >support it. > >Command-line MS FTP clients don't support passive mode and I have heard >reports that IE does not also. If that is the problem you'll have to >switch to a Linux box or find a windows FTP client that supports >passive. > >

2 1

RE: Stub implementation of CABINET.DLL
by Jeff Smith 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

>From: Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> >To: "'Greg Turner'" <gmturner007(a)ameritech.net>, wine-devel(a)winehq.com > > > On Friday 15 November 2002 12:47 pm, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > Now that we have the permission to use cabextract > > > under the LGPL it would be useful to have stubs > > > for CABINET.DLL so intrested people can work > > > with implementing it with fewer "infrastructure" > > > problems. >[snip] > > Anyone working on this? If not I'd be glad to take it on, > > seems like it > > should be easy. > >I personally doesn't currently have that much time to work with it. > >However, when I saw that not much happend despite >getting code from cabextrect under LGPL I thought >that perhaps people were having trouble on how >to create a new DLL in Wine and how to extract >the declarations from the Microsoft header without >creating a derived work. I have done it many >times before so thought why not do it... > >So I very happy that somebody is intrested in continuing. > >PS. If anybody have some other DLL that they wish to implement >but don't now how to do it, don't hesitate to ask me to >create a stub DLL with related headers. If it is not too much effort, could you elaborate on the derived work issue. I have been thinking about trying to stub out, then work at implementing, a particular component. Rather than have someone else do the work, I am more interested in learning about doing it myself, and about any issues (legal and technical) involved. I am not asking for a complete howto here, but even a summary of the highlights would be quite valuable (to me at least). -- Thanks -- Jeff S. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

Configure question
by Martin Wilck 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

I am thinking about some netapi32 improvements where I'd need to call the functions of the getpw/getgr family: getpwnam(), getpwent(), getgrent(), etc. Configure checks for the "pwd.h" header and getpwuid(). Must I add more checks for all the functions I use, or is it ok to assume that getpwuid() presence implies getpwnam() presence? Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck@Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy

2 2

windres vs. wrc
by Dimitrie O. Paun 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Folks, I've just discovered (DUH!) another free resource compiler: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/gnupro/GNUPro-Toolkit-98r2/5_ut/c_Usingb… This one is part of binutils. Now, like any good hacker, I hate such code duplication. Granted, I haven't looked through the code of windres, so I can't say if it's any good. However, here are some points to ponder: -- all Win32 free software projects out there use windres, not wrc -- for this reason, it is like it's more generic / better maintained -- do we want eventually to phase one of them out? -- their command line arguments are incompatible. This causes problems when trying to build portable Makefiles. Should we try to be command line compatible with windres, so we are a drop in replacement (for the .rc/.res -> .o conversion)? Any windres experiences? Comments? -- Dimi.

3 4

RE: WineHQ FTP (ftp://ftp.winehq.com/pub/wine/)
by Kye Lewis 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Hi, It just seems odd, as this FTP site worked fine with internet explorer before. - no errors at all. Thanks, Kye Lewis kyethespy(a)liquid2k.com -----Original Message----- From: wine-devel-admin(a)winehq.com [mailto:wine-devel-admin@winehq.com] On Behalf Of Keith Matthews Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:32 PM To: wine devel < Subject: Re: WineHQ FTP (ftp://ftp.winehq.com/pub/wine/) On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:29:09 +1100 "Kye Lewis" <kyethespy(a)liquid2k.com> wrote: > Hi, > > While trying to connect to the wineHQ ftp site, I am getting the > following error with IE6: > > 200 Type set to A. > 500 Illegal PORT command. > 500 LPRT not understood > Don't know about the last error, but the illegal PORT is typically seen when trying to use active FTP from behind a firewall that does not support it. Command-line MS FTP clients don't support passive mode and I have heard reports that IE does not also. If that is the problem you'll have to switch to a Linux box or find a windows FTP client that supports passive.

1 0

RE: vxdcall calling convention
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > In any case I think Vincent and Marcus is right, it should be have a > > WINAPI like in Vincent patch because otherwise the "DWORD service" > > parameter is not popped from the stack AFAICS. > > No, it makes no difference whatsoever, the stack is restored from the > context structure in any case. Ah, OK. Wrong solution. But still, shouldn't the "DWORD service" parameter be popped somewhere? I can't see any place where it is. > The only use of WINAPI would be to make > winapi_check happy, but it would probably be better to teach it to not > do that check for register functions. VxDCall is the only register function that violates stdcall => WINAPI. But sure turning the check off in winapi_check is easy.

3 2

Wine (Debian) problems
by Anant Kabra 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

Hi, I've been having the following problems with wine for the last couple of days. I'm using the daily cvs snapshot builds from http://people.debian.org/~andreas/debian Here's the output (this happens with every thing that I try with wine). Any suggestions? fixme:win32:PE_CreateModule Security directory ignored err:module:BUILTIN32_dlopen failed to load .so lib for builtin x11drv.dll: /usr/lib/wine/x11drv.dll.so: undefined symbol: X11DRV_OpenGL_Init Could not load graphics driver 'x11drv' err:module:BUILTIN32_dlopen failed to load .so lib for builtin x11drv.dll: /usr/lib/wine/x11drv.dll.so: undefined symbol: X11DRV_OpenGL_Init Could not load graphics driver 'x11drv' fixme:process:CreateProcessA (X:\IXP000.TMP\ie6wzd.exe,...): NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS ignored err:module:BUILTIN32_dlopen failed to load .so lib for builtin x11drv.dll: /usr/lib/wine/x11drv.dll.so: undefined symbol: X11DRV_OpenGL_Init Could not load graphics driver 'x11drv' err:heap:HEAP_GetPtr Invalid heap 00000000! Wine exited with a successful status -- Anant Kabra <anant(a)yash.com>

3 2

Patch for Bug 1145 - Compile ntdll with -DSTRICT
by Andrew John Hughes 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Should fix all warnings - -- Andrew :-) Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE92WZWSE/kMce1ABARApuoAJ49FI04qMlgt5dJvaG6ShzRdPthKACeOLmQ UhjYFSZ6RYkpCxyEzPiAG3Q= =Vykj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Possibly my last question... for a while. ;-)
by Fredrick P. Lackey 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

Gentlemen, I feel really bad bothering a developers list with such basic questions, but. well. you all ARE the most responsive of everyone I've met so far. And, since you seem to hold the key to getting my @$$ of Micrsoshaft, then. well. I guess I'm sorry but I'm not. ;-) (By the way, if there is every anything I can do to repay you for your assistance and patience, consider it done.) As much as it pains me to ask, has anyone tried installing VMWare v3.x (either the Linux or Windows version) into Red Hat v8.0? If so, did you get it work? And, if so, then how? Again, my goal most definitely is to use Wine and Wine alone, however, I can't even consider moving forward unless I can use my environment for ALL of my current tasks (which includes development for M$, unfortunately). Thanx, either way. And, again, thank you for all of your help. R/S Fred www.fredlackey.com

2 1

RE: vxdcall calling convention
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > However, I don't think it is enough. It will work for the > > implemented VxDCall that pops the stack itself, however it will not > > work for unimplemented VxDCalls since they will not clean up the > > stack correctly AFAICS. > > The problem is you don't know how many args to pop. In theory the name > of the function tells you that, but in practice apps don't call the > right version, and VxDCall pops the number of args the specific call > requires no matter which version of the function is called. So this is > how we do it too. Ah. Microsoft. :-( In any case I think Vincent and Marcus is right, it should be have a WINAPI like in Vincent patch because otherwise the "DWORD service" parameter is not popped from the stack AFAICS.

2 1

wine commandline options
by Rick Romero 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

I was playing with Pegasus Mail (silver list) to see what I could get working. It looks like it doesn't detect winsock.dll using it's own 'search algorythm, so the TCP/IP options don't get enabled - hence the (paraphrased) 'wtf?' in the silver list description. So, I tried to force Pegasus Mail to load winsock explicitly using the -Z 128 option: $wine winpm-32 -Z 128 but wine comes back with 'Unknown option -Z'. I'm not quite sure how these are getting parsed, but I see in misc/options.c parse_options() if (*p++ != '-') continue; /* not an option */ Should exit if the 2nd char isn't a - (am I right?) BUT, when parse_options returns to OPTIONS_ParseOptions() The following: /* check if any option remains */ for (i = 1; argv[i]; i++) { if (!strcmp( argv[i], "--" )) { remove_options( argv, i, 1, 0 ); break; } if (argv[i][0] == '-') { MESSAGE( "Unknown option '%s'\n\n", argv[i] ); // OPTIONS_Usage(); } } Still picks up '-' as an invalid option. My first thought would be to stop checking for options after the 1st and 2nd chars are not '-' (ie. after the Win32 program name), but I'm not sure if that's correct. Any thoughts? (FYI, no, the option didn't make Pmail work.) Rick -- -- Rick Romero IT Manager Valeo, Inc. ph: 262.695.4841 Sussex, WI. fax: 262.695.4850 Rick(a)valeoinc.com

5 6

Dual boot solves everything?
by Fredrick P. Lackey 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

Gentlemen, First of all, thanks to everyone with your input so far. I've now been able to get IE v6.0 up and running as well as a few other less important applications. Which brings me to a few more questions. 1. Since it is possible to use native DLLs with applications, can one assume that on a dual boot machine with Win98 SE2 and Red Hat v8.0 that it would only be necessary to install the desired application under Windows, then add native DLLs to the Wine config file to get [almost] *any* Windows application to function? 2. Each time I launch a program, a black window appears that seems to make up the "shell" (for lack of a better term) for that instance of the application. This window is always somewhere around 800x600 pixels. Is there any way to not show this window and/or get the size to be something else? I am running in 1600x1200 resolution and only using half of the screen is frustrating. 3. Is there an easy way within Linux/Wine to determine what native DLLs the application should/could use? Thanx again, Fred Lackey Orlando, Florida

6 5

Progress report wine faq
by Tony Lambregts 18 Nov '02

18 Nov '02

Vincent Berone has provided me with a dsl that works on my system and I am able to build the html so that it looks like it should. link to html built from sgml: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lambregt/index.html link to original html: http://www.dssd.ca/wine/Wine-FAQ.html Please test this with your browser and let me know of any problems. We have already tested with Mozilla (1.0 and 1.0.1) and IE 5.5 -- Tony Lambregts

3 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel