wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

2 participants
84469 discussions

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > What kludge? Ugly OK, that is your subjective opinion, but kludge? > > Even if we only see it from a purely C language perspective, > > it solves the problem of making sure that the C library functions > > have the prototypes we expect them to have. There is no other > > way to solve that problem that I can think of so it is certainly > > not a kludge. > > Not only is it not a problem we need to solve, but it's more likely to > actually cause new problems. I wouldn't be surprised at all if your > patch broke compile on some platforms that have some slight > differences in prototypes (like char* vs. const char*). Well, believe it or not the thought actually occured to me before I submitted the patch, so I actually tested it on Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux, and the only thing I had to change was the include order or stdarg.h to make it work on all platforms. The thing is that if it actually breaks on some platform it is a red light that something might be (and probably is) wrong. We can always fix it with #ifdef:s and winapi_{check,extract,fixup} or whatever can use the #ifdef to generate a correct entry for that platform if need be. Of course the more likely scenario will be that it serves as a reminder that we really can't export the C library function directly because of platform incompabillities and simply don't do it. And no, I don't believe const/non-const is a problem. Beside even if it turn out I'm wrong we can just add a "#define const /* nothing */" at the top of each externs.c file. That, I admit, is a kludge but only a very small and harmless one. > > If you are not convinced now, you never will be. > > I think we agree on this one ;-) Probably. I don't have much hope of convincing you with the statement above either.

1 0

Re: Handling X errors using exception handlers
by Alexandre Julliard 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Lionel Ulmer <lionel.ulmer(a)free.fr> writes: > When discussing with Ove yesterday on #WineHQ about the handling of X > errors, he told me about an idea of his : using exceptions to handle X > errors. The main problem with that is that I don't think you can jump out of Xlib without corrupting its state. Also you'd need to properly unlock the tsx11 lock in case of exception, which will probably require an finally handler around each X call. My idea was to have the following two functions: void X11DRV_expect_error( unsigned char request, unsigned char error, XID id ); int X11DRV_check_error(void); You'd call X11DRV_expect_error before doing an X call that can fail; then if an X error happens that matches what you expect, the X error handler will simply set a flag and ignore the error (if it doesn't match you get the standard error handling). Then after the call you use X11DRV_check_error to see if your error happened or not. Would this work for what you need? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Wine freshman class
by Paul Gaynor 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Hi, I am new to the development of wine, part of the wine freshman class :) I am really interested in developing wine for use with OpenGL hopefully to push the performance of the 3-D to window$ level. I am interested in making a striped build that just handles OpenGL strictly for gaming. Any pointers that any of you can give to get me started on my journey would be wonderfully appreciated. :) How much Win$/Linux programming experience is needed with the various tasks associated with developing wine? What are the different areas (and how much programming) is required for each task of developing wine? What do you think a good place for a beginning programmer/ developer to start? I am very excited that this group exists and I am looking forward to hacking on wine :) Paul Gaynor gpk2(a)uswest.net

2 1

re: small named pipe patch
by Mike McCormack 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Hi Ove, funny that, i had the same problems with install shield and thought about the same solution... but i don't know enough about COM to make it work. i'll have a go at implementing WaitForNamedPipe... it'd be great to have an interprocess COM implementation :-) Mike > I'm planning to use named pipes to implement a basic interprocess COM, to > support the stupid InstallShield v6 under Wine, so it would be nice if > they could be implemented fully (would e.g. be nice if someone implemented > WaitForNamedPipe for me, and things like that). > > (Would that be a good idea?) ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack@start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > What kludge? Ugly OK, that is your subjective opinion, but kludge? > Even if we only see it from a purely C language perspective, > it solves the problem of making sure that the C library functions > have the prototypes we expect them to have. There is no other > way to solve that problem that I can think of so it is certainly > not a kludge. Not only is it not a problem we need to solve, but it's more likely to actually cause new problems. I wouldn't be surprised at all if your patch broke compile on some platforms that have some slight differences in prototypes (like char* vs. const char*). > If you are not convinced now, you never will be. I think we agree on this one ;-) -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: implement SetCommState16 using SetCommState
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 15 Jul '01

15 Jul '01

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Mike McCormack wrote: > > quickly checked. > > ChangeLog: > Rewrite SetCommState16 to use SetCommState > Okay, if you get this, juno 1.49 finds no fault in this patch either. Lawson ---cut here--- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Win95 version fix
by Francois Gouget 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hi, Bob Goodwin proposes the following change to misc/version.c as a fix for bug #232 (http://wine.codeweavers.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232): --- cut here --- Index: misc/version.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/misc/version.c,v retrieving revision 1.43 diff -u -r1.43 version.c --- misc/version.c 2001/07/02 19:59:49 1.43 +++ misc/version.c 2001/07/14 20:58:49 @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ }, /* WIN95 */ { - 0x07005F03, + 0x07000304, 0xC0000004, { sizeof(OSVERSIONINFOA), 4, 0, 0x40003B6, --- cut here --- Note that the previous value for Win95 was the same as that for Win98 which is a bit strange. Can someone check the value proposed by Bob Goodwin? Or alternately, how would I check it myself? I have access to Win95/98/2000/Me so I could also check the value for Win2000 and even add one for Wine Me. Btw, if someone needs to check values for one of the above platforms and you can provide me with a simple test program, just let me know. I can probably help you. Of course, the simpler the program is to execute, the more likely I am to be able to help you. I can also accept source (Win32) so you can develop the test program with Winelib and just send me the source, I'll recompile it on Windows. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Avoid the Gates of Hell - use Linux.

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > However I'm a little curious where the documentation, > > and yes I'm talking about real documentation not just > > the external name and the ordinal, should be placed. > > Sure you have the underlying Unix man pages at least > > if we are talking about the MSVCRT and NTDLL functions, > > but it would be nice to have a proper Windows style > > man page for them eventually. > > Given that nobody is writing documention for the Windows functions > anyway, I don't think the documentation of standard C library > functions is an issue at all. Well, lack of people writing documentation is a problem in most open source projects and Wine doesn't seem to be an exception. However, denying people the possiblity to do so for some functions doesn't help either. > > I can't fix winapi_check properly. I can kludge it yes, but fix no. > > Your proposed solution is not fixing it either, it's just moving the > kludge from winapi_check directly into the source. And that's not a > good thing IMO. What kludge? Ugly OK, that is your subjective opinion, but kludge? Even if we only see it from a purely C language perspective, it solves the problem of making sure that the C library functions have the prototypes we expect them to have. There is no other way to solve that problem that I can think of so it is certainly not a kludge. Of course you can always argue that it is a solution searching for a problem, but that is not a what I would call a kludge. Anyway, arguing about misuse of words is a waste of time and I don't think I have anything more to add that are likely to convince you. If you are not convinced now, you never will be.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > However I'm a little curious where the documentation, > and yes I'm talking about real documentation not just > the external name and the ordinal, should be placed. > Sure you have the underlying Unix man pages at least > if we are talking about the MSVCRT and NTDLL functions, > but it would be nice to have a proper Windows style > man page for them eventually. Given that nobody is writing documention for the Windows functions anyway, I don't think the documentation of standard C library functions is an issue at all. > I can't fix winapi_check properly. I can kludge it yes, but fix no. Your proposed solution is not fixing it either, it's just moving the kludge from winapi_check directly into the source. And that's not a good thing IMO. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed > information be > > stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the > question is > > how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that > > we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? > > Sure we can, that's the easy part; the hard part is making it work for > the normal entry points. And I'm not going to add anything to support > stubs etc. until it's clear that we can do it for normal entry points > in a way that I consider acceptable. Fair enough. However note that I'm not suggesting that we shuld. I said "While we probably should not actually change the .c files to look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations that need to be done before that" But OK, I will concentrate on supporting normal entry points in an acceptable way first. > > While we probably should not actually change the .c files to > > look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity > > that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations > > that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the > > "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime > > for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all > > the DLL:s functions are "implemented". > > Then fix winapi_check. I don't want to have to add a bunch of external > declaration for C library functions, that's very ugly. First of all ugly is subjective, I can't see what is ugly about it, but OK you decide what you want, so arguing that point is no use. However I'm a little curious where the documentation, and yes I'm talking about real documentation not just the external name and the ordinal, should be placed. Sure you have the underlying Unix man pages at least if we are talking about the MSVCRT and NTDLL functions, but it would be nice to have a proper Windows style man page for them eventually. Perhaps the some of the functions have some limitation in Windows that the Unix variant doesn't have (or vice versa) and thus if you extend the Winelib application you really want to know that, so the Unix man page will not really be enough. So yes, I'm really curious to know where you think the documentation should be placed. I think my solution is quite good since it solve three problem. 1. Provides somewhere to write the documentation 2. Provides a C compiler checkable prototype that can give a warning if any of the native system functions happends to have another prototype. 3. Helps tools like winapi_check a place to check things that the .spec files entries are correct. Even if you still considers it ugly, it might be worth it considering what you get. > So no, I'm not > going to apply your patch. I can't fix winapi_check properly. I can kludge it yes, but fix no. There is no implementation or anything else in the source that indicates that it is supposed to use functions from another DLL. But sure I can kludge winapi_check to ignore the atom functions and lstrcmpi in USER. The functions from the C Library is already kludged since a long time ago, so what the hell lets just add another kludge, it is only 5 new functions. If you don't apply it I don't have much choice have I.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed information be > stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the question is > how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that > we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? Sure we can, that's the easy part; the hard part is making it work for the normal entry points. And I'm not going to add anything to support stubs etc. until it's clear that we can do it for normal entry points in a way that I consider acceptable. > While we probably should not actually change the .c files to > look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity > that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations > that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the > "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime > for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all > the DLL:s functions are "implemented". Then fix winapi_check. I don't want to have to add a bunch of external declaration for C library functions, that's very ugly. So no, I'm not going to apply your patch. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: hello all
by Travis Michielsen 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hi all, After reading Brandon's message I was inspired to introduce myself to this list as well. Although I have been following wine for several months now, I have just recently started wine development (only 1 small patch so far :-( ). Currently I am focusing on learning the API before I persue patches that are significantly larger, but have started a todo list. I am an avid C/C++ programmer and have experimented with serveral other languages including Java(script), Pascal, Basic, etc. I have done allot of programming for Windows/DOS in the past but when I discovered linux about 2 years ago, I immediately switched OS's and began pursuing linux programming. I do, however, still run windows occasionally, when I have trouble running programs under wine, but I believe that someday (hopefully sooner rather than latter), we will be able to use linux (and wine) to run almost every program without thought. Anyways, Welcome Brandon, and Hello All. :) Travis Michielsen __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

1 0

[PATCH] dde unicode warning
by Gerard Patel 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

ChangeLog: * dlls/user/dde/misc.c Fix unicode warning

1 0

[PATCH] Toolbar : image list can be changed after TB_SETIMAGELIST;
by Gerard Patel 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

The imagelist of a toolbar can be changed by the app after it has set it to the toolbar (using TB_SETIMAGELIST). In this case the bitmap number can be wrong, leading to some apps not displaying text correctly (although the bitmaps were still showing because of Wine code not really testing for bitmap number in this case). Fix for Winzip 8.0, replaces the preceding one (same problem) ChangeLog: * dlls/comctl32/toolbar.c Refresh bitmap count to take in account imagelist changes after TB_SETIMAGELIST

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > > redundant information if we can. > > If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl > script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the > *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. Well the *.api files (or at least the manual maintainance of them) will be eliminated some day. I will just have to implement parsing of the "typedefs" in the headers. However, note that I'm not suggesting that we change to automatic generation of spec files right now, but at some point in the future. What tool we should for it is a later problem. With the exception of which types maps to which "kinds" (long ptr str wstr) the tool will not nessarily be very complex and I'm not sure what the parsing of typedefs to find out will be very complex either. But I wont know until I try. What primarily intrests me now is how should the needed information be stored? The problem with normal entry point is solved, the question is how the stubs and forwards should be stored? Before we know that we can't really write any working extraction tool can we? While I'm not entirely happy with your: /* ##spec## foo "@ forward bar(ptr str) BAZ.bar" */ solution it is the better that any ideas I have. Simplicity has its charm. :-) Then we could just, taking USER as example add /* ##spec## user "name user" */ /* ##spec## user "type win16" */ /* ##spec## user "heap 65520" */ /* ##spec## user "file user.exe" */ /* ##spec## user "owner user32" */ /* ##spec## user "rsrc resources/version16.res" */ /* ##spec## user "2 stub OldExitWindows" */ /* ##spec## user "3 stub EnableOEMLayer" */ /* ##spec## user "4 stub DisableOEMLayer" */ /* ... */ in a appropriate place in say dlls/user/user_main.c. The order that winapi_extract finds the directive is not important the .spec file format happends to make it possible to always get everything in the right order anyway. However this solves the header, the debug_channels, forwards and stubs problem and could be used to solve the remaining problems with "Exported external functions" but I would rather have it solved with my patch with that name, that you didn't apply when applying the other patches. So will accept such a solution? While we probably should not actually change the .c files to look like this until we have a tool of acceptable complexity that can generate the .spec files, there is quite a few preparations that need to be done before that and I would really like to have the "Exported external functions" patch applied in the meantime for other reasons like winapi_check likes to know where all the DLL:s functions are "implemented". > And it seems to me you are > finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) Well, considering that our developers have neglected the comments for many year and only changing the spec files that is not very suprising. That is the problem with having redundant information, most developers only change where it really count either out of ignorance or lack of time. > > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > > If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing > function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by > the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe > to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). Well, you also have implementing new functions. You have FooA and want to implement FooW for example. It is much easier and much more natural to be able to just cut and paste without having to change the spec files. I have seen many such errors detected by winapi_check over the years.

1 0

Handling X errors using exception handlers
by Lionel Ulmer 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hi all, When discussing with Ove yesterday on #WineHQ about the handling of X errors, he told me about an idea of his : using exceptions to handle X errors. This way, when we have to explicitely handle X errors (as we will need to do for XVidmode and XDGA2 due to some (stupidly done IMHO :-) ) security fixes in XFree 4.x), we could do that using exceptions. Before doing this 'properly' (ie change the X11 drv, update the XShm error mechanism, the debugger, ...), here is what I did for now : 1) I created a new Wine-private exception type in include/wine/exception.h : /* unhandled X error */ #define EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV 0x80000104 2) I created a new X error handler that is installed at X11DRV initialization : static int X11DRV_XErrorHandler(Display *dpy, XErrorEvent *event) { EXCEPTION_RECORD rec; rec.ExceptionCode = EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV; rec.ExceptionFlags = 0; rec.ExceptionRecord = NULL; rec.ExceptionAddress = XGLErrorHandler; rec.NumberParameters = 4; rec.ExceptionInformation[0] = (DWORD)event->serial; rec.ExceptionInformation[1] = (DWORD)event->error_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[2] = (DWORD)event->request_code; rec.ExceptionInformation[3] = (DWORD)event->minor_code; RtlRaiseException(&rec); return 0; } 3) I changed the XVidMode detection code thus : /* handle only X errors */ static WINE_EXCEPTION_FILTER(xerror_handler) { switch (GetExceptionCode()) { case EXCEPTION_WINE_X11DRV: return EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER; default: return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH; } } (...) void X11DRV_XF86VM_Init(void) { (...) wine_tsx11_lock(); (...) __TRY { if (!XF86VidModeQueryVersion(gdi_display, &xf86vm_major, &xf86vm_minor)) { xf86vm_major = 0; } XSync(gdi_display, False); } __EXCEPT(xerror_handler) { xf86vm_major = 0; } __ENDTRY wine_tsx11_unlock(); if (xf86vm_major == 0) { TRACE("No XVidmode\n"); return; } (...) } So what do you all think of this ? Is this something that I should add to the whole Wine tree ? The only problem with that is that it would make debugging X errors a bit more difficult as we won't have the standard X error message in debug reports from users... Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/

1 0

cvs changes
by mdew 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

i havent had any problems until i updated to the latest CVS.., what exactly changed to cause this to pop up? (Using mIRC etc) fixme:console:SetConsoleCtrlHandler (0x3000f330,0) - no error checking or testing yet

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by Mike McCormack 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Hey Lawson, thanks for sending Juno... i got it, but i haven't tried it yet... i thought i'd just keep patching a bit at a time until somebody complained :-) If anybody knows of any free win3.1 terminal programs, please tell me. Anyhow, this is my TODO list: * use SetCommState in SetCommState16 * save and restore m_stat using Get/SetCommState in OpenComm16 * use ReadFileEx/WriteFileEx instead of service thread * finally, move 16bit comm implementation to USER Mike > Good day! > > If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed > patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. > > Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered > filling in the junk to make a new account? > > Regards, > > Lawson ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack@start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

1 0

Re: PATCH: createwindow small unicode prob
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> writes: > Changelog: > WM_NCCREATE has a A/W struct, so check unicode flag for which call > to use. In what case did this cause a problem? The desktop window proc is Unicode-only, and the structure doesn't contain strings anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 14 Jul '01

14 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. > Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) > find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people > make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having > redundant information if we can. If there is an easy way to avoid it, sure. But if it requires a Perl script as complex as winapi_check, especially the maintaining of the *.api files, I'm not sure it's a win. And it seems to me you are finding a lot more errors in the comments than in the spec files ;-) > In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially > newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the > ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files > will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. If normal developers need to change the spec file for an existing function, something is seriously wrong. The spec entry is dictated by the dll interface, and there is no reason to change it (except maybe to change a 'ptr' into an 'str', but this is a cosmetic issue). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > > One of the major reasons of having automatically > > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > > store redundant information. The needed information > > is already in the C function declaration and storing > > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > > complicatated but it really isn't that important > > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. > > IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the > source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a > Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add > comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see > much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the > information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for > that matter). Well, the ordinal of each function and for that that matter which functions that should be exported must be specified somewhere. Currently winapi_extract takes this information from the comment lines looking like this in the nearest preceding comment: * Foo (BAR.@) All non-static functions with such preceding comment line(s) is considered exported using the name specified in the comment as the external name. Of course, I can take this information from anywhere, but for obvious reason I can't guess it. If the unmodified source contains Microsoft Visual C++ __declspec(dllexport) directives or the project has a Microsoft Export file (a .def file) I can generate a spec file. This is not supported yet, but is no particular problem supporting in itself. A little worse problem is that I currently doesn't extract the function "kinds" (long ptr double str wstr) from the source but use the tools/winapi_check/win{16,32}/*.api files to determine the "kinds". This is not a teoretical problem, however it might take some time to fix all the same. But after that winapi_extract will be able to take unmodified source if __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file exists. However I think we concentrate primarily on the Wine source. I think as far the it is concerned it will suffice to use comment lines like * Foo (BAR.@) to extract the normal entries for the spec files. The stubs and forwards need to have special handling but then so must it in the case of __declspec(dllexport) directives or a .def file as well. There is no problem for winapi_extract to support all the above either (except implementation time of course). > Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now > (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does > is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think > there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and > they are not going to change much. Well, there is the issue of maintaining redundant information. Sure winapi_check can (and indeed was the original reason for it) find missmatchs. But given the number of errors I have seen people make that winapi_check detected, we really should avoid having redundant information if we can. In addition it will be much easier for the developers (especially newbies). If you change the prototype in the .c files or the ordinal in the comment above it, it will be enough. Stub files will be something normal developers needn't concern himself with. > Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed > debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should > go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping > program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up > the spec files. That is another thing that I have planned to do with winapi_extract. I don't have any good idea how this should look like yet. You (or somebody else) are welcome to write a specification on exactly what you want so I can fix the how when I have time.

1 0

Re: Documentation fixes
by Alexandre Julliard 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. > One of the major reasons of having automatically > generated .spec files is to avoid having to > store redundant information. The needed information > is already in the C function declaration and storing > in a comment as well brings us back to the current > situation. Sure it makes that generator less > complicatated but it really isn't that important > as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. IMO, this is true if we can make the generator work purely on the source code, so that you can give it the unmodified source of a Windows dll and it spits out the spec file. If you need to add comments before each and every exported function, then I don't see much advantage to parsing the source. You might as well put all the information in the comment (or leave it in the current spec file for that matter). Basically, if the source parsing allows doing more than we do now (like build spec files for new dlls) it's worthwhile; if all it does is generate the existing spec files some other way I don't think there's much point. After all, we have the spec files already, and they are not going to change much. Another use of the source parser could be to generate more detailed debugging information for +relay; but in this case I'd say it should go to a completely different file, used by some external relay dumping program. I don't want all the extra debug information to clutter up the spec files. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: GetCommState16 ....
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Good day! If you get this, neither this patch nor any of the recently committed patches that muck with 16 bit comms bother my 16 bit comms app. Mike, did you not get juno.tar.gz or do you just not want to be bothered filling in the junk to make a new account? Regards, Lawson ---cut--- ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

hello all
by Brandon Kilgore 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

Hi everyone, Just letting you all know that there's a new listener out here, eager to pick up on what you're discussing. I'm only 17, so I'll be pretty much staying out of the way, but I love programming so hopefully you won't mind if I stick my hand up to ask a question or respond to someone every once in a while. Just so you can know a bit about me...I used to be a purely QBasic programmer in my "early" days, but a few years ago I began broadening my horizons, mostly with HTML and Visual Basic. For a long time I had wanted to learn C but never really got around to it, but a little over a year ago I finally sat down and started learning, and now its one of the only languages I ever use. Some other languages I currently program in (or would come back to me if need be :-) : C/C++/Visual C++ (Q)Basic/Visual Basic HTML Perl BF (there's an interesting language...) Java/JavaScript WISE InstallMaster scripting ;-) Anyways, I'll let you all get back to the important development discussions. I'll be talking to you... - Brandon

2 2

RE: Documentation fixes
by Patrik Stridvall 13 Jul '01

13 Jul '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Like: > > > > > /************************************************************* > ********** > > * strcpy (MSVCRT.@) > > */ > > #if 0 /* Suppress warnings */ > > extern char *strcpy(char *dest, const char *src); > > #endif > > > > Perhaps we could do the same with atom functions and lstrcmpi? > > The #if 0 #endif isn't even needed for them I believe. > > That's quite ugly IMO. The #if 0 #endif or having to have a documentation comment at all? Anyway the #if 0 is not needed I thought it might be needed in some cases but it is not. I mistakingly believed it might be type conflicts but it can't be since any exported function must of course use the C library types otherwise you can't export them directly. If you are refering to the documentation comment, I can't really see why. All other functions have it and adding additional documentation might be a good idea in some cases as well. Furthermore the extern declaration makes it possible for the C compiler to check that the prototype is the same as the prototype in the included files. I spotted several error when doing the patch because of this. As hinted above, I have implemented a working solution that does what I have described above. See separate mail. > As long as we require comments, we might as > well put everything explicitly in the comment, something like: > > /* ##spec## msvcrt "@ cdecl strcpy(ptr str) strcpy" */ > > (we can probably come up with a better syntax, but you get the idea). > Then we can simply grep for '##spec##' and extract everything into the > spec file. We can do the same for forwards etc. (and in fact we could > do it for normal entry points as well). For forwards, stubs and other special cases, perhaps. I don't like it very much but it is acceptable. But we need not decide that now. I will think more about it and come back later with some kind of proposal that might or might not match yours. I'm not sure, we will see. For normal entry point, however, I respectfully disagree. One of the major reasons of having automatically generated .spec files is to avoid having to store redundant information. The needed information is already in the C function declaration and storing in a comment as well brings us back to the current situation. Sure it makes that generator less complicatated but it really isn't that important as long as it is reliable and not ambigeous. PS. For the record: I consider winapi_extract a prototype not something that nessary will finally use in "production". We might of course use it, but I would rather rewrite it so it becomes simpler and more reliable. Perhaps it shouldn't be in Perl but in C instead? Oh, well, that is a minor issue compared to how the information should be stored.

1 0

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