wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

2 participants
84469 discussions

No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufA)
by David D. Hagood 10 Feb '01

10 Feb '01

I've tried to install several programs under Wine (the most recent being Delorme's AAA MapNGo V6.0) and I consistently get this error: err:win32:fixup_imports No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufA) imported from shell32.dll, setting to 0xdeadbeef err:win32:fixup_imports No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufW) imported from shell32.dll, setting to 0xdeadbeef Always followed by the app calling StrRetToBufW and dying. It looks to me like this function does exist in the code. I've tried forcing my system to use the native DLL, to use the Wine DLL, to no avail. Any pointers on where to go from here? fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np err:win32:fixup_imports No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufA) imported from shell32.dll, setting to 0xdeadbeef err:win32:fixup_imports No implementation for shlwapi.dll.0(StrRetToBufW) imported from shell32.dll, setting to 0xdeadbeef fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np Console: Making console complex (creating an xterm)... fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np Warning: locale not supported by C library, locale unchanged

2 2

Re: Benchmark hell...
by Iris Fischer 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Hi there, I found your benchmark... it wasn´t exactly what I was looking for, but do you maybe have an idea on how I can find information about the demand for wine in Canada, or North America on the internet? I´m writing my thesis on importing german wine to Canada and need to go over the demand part too of course. Would be great if you could help me. You can contact me at fischer_iris(a)hotmail.com Thanks a lot, sincerely IRIS FISCHER

6 6

LDT
by Sandie 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

Hello i'm french (so i may make some mistakes) I m interested in wine but it is not the main goal of my mail, I would like to know how to change the ldt under linux,because I heard that wine uses this function to run windows program,so if someone Can explain me how to change it or just tell where to get doc it would be nice! Thank you for your help! Please answer me at nicoobzz(a)free.fr

3 2

Problem with Pager control
by Guy L. Albertelli 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

While working on ComboEx with the 1/29/2001 CVS, IE4 no longer displays its menu bar. (Well, not really a menu bar, it is a Rebar with a Pager as the child and a Toolbar as a child of the Pager. The Toolbar buttons are the "menu" items.) If I revert the Pager code to the 12/29/2000 version (very limited functionality) then the "menu" appears and is usable. If you need traces, I can provide them. This is with preinstalled copy of IE4. Thanks, Guy Albertelli <<galberte(a)neo.lrun.com>>

2 1

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > > One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the > > DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot > > reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows. > > > > If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent > > it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible > > enforce it. ;-) > > > > Of course a one line patch making a critical function > > always return TRUE or something might be able to disable > > it for people that don't like it. :-) > > DO IT! I think we currently have other more important thing to do for Wine 1.0. > What are they going to say, that because you can > change the code > that you are aiding in circumventing copyright protection. It is actually much more intresting than that. Let for arguments sake say that we do it they sue us and the courts rule that it is legal. In that case if the full implementation is legal what about a partial implementation or a buggy implementation? If we have a function CheckIfAllowed that are implemented as FIXME("stub"); return TRUE will it make it a circumvention device. What if CheckIfAllowed is incorrectly used (intentally or by misstake) making things that are not authorized possible? What if we have a full implementation and somebody distributes a one line patch that disable any protection Is that patch a circumvention device? What if somebody says on the mailing list that if you make CheckIfAllowed return TRUE it will disable the protected. Is that _sentence_ a circumvention device? What somebody says that it is really easy to disable just look in the source code? Is that _sentence_ a circumvention device? What if somebody writes a perl script that takes parts of the Wine code and generates and compiles a tools useful for circumvention. Is that perl script a circumvention device? The point that I'm trying to make is that if any program that does Digital Rights Managagement is legal as open source it is without any problem possible make a device that circumvents these rights. This is the logical problem with DMCA unless it is totally draconian, ie everything even remotely related is forbidden, it is almost useless since even with a arbitrary line somewhere you can use whatever is legal and step by step, using steps that are themselves legal transform it to something that are on the other side of the arbitrary line. If law was mathematics this would be sufficient proof that DMCA is logical inconsistant since it would mean that some actions were both legal and illegal. In short no arbitrary line is possible either everything even remotely related is illegal or nothing is illegal. > If they go after > you then you know for sure that they have the poorest of intentions. Well, we already know that their only intention is more profit, so this will not really help us derive anything new.

3 2

Re: debugger fix
by Ulrich Weigand 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

I wrote: > Eric Pouech wrote: > > > > Could you send me the libwinspool.drv.so file that objcopy > > > is choking on? I'd like to look whether there's something > > > strange with that. > > here it is... (I've used libpsapi.so instead, because it's smaller, but > > effects are the same) > > Well, one difference I see is that yours has a .rel.stabs section, > while mine doesn't. Now I don't quite understand why stabs need > to be relocated, but I guess this could be a source of confusion. > In any case, after I strip the stabs data using objcopy --strip-debug, > I can subsequently use objcopy -N without problems. > > The problem might be caused by the objcopy -L step not correctly > updating the debug info. Could you try adding a --debugging > argument to objcopy in both localize_imports and strip_imports? No, it's definitely a problem with the .rel.stabs section. In fact, *every* invocation of objcopy that leaves the .rel.stabs section in its output fails -- even a simple identical copy. (Note that if you *remove* the .rel.stabs section, it works -- this is why a normal 'strip' works ...) The reason for this is that objcopy relies on the bfd library to assign the file offsets of the sections in the output file. Unfortunately, the automatic assignment is done only for sections that are part of a segment (i.e. loaded into memory), and also for *those* sections outside of segments that are *not* reloc sections ... For reloc sections outside of segments, like the .rel.stabs section, no automatic file offset assignment is performed. Instead, the upper layers must do this themselves, which e.g. the linker does in its final_link step. The objcopy tool, however, never does. This leads to an invalid file offset being used when writing out the .rel.stabs section, which causes the abort. As a side note: I've tried using the --debugging argument, which basically recreates the debug sections from scratch instead of copying them, and this fails completely with my toolchain -- it runs into an endless loop. The reason for this is apparently a compiler bug in gcc 2.95.2 that miscompiles a routine from objcopy by converting a recursive function call into tail recursion in an invalid way ... I still don't understand why your toolchain creates a .rel.stabs section in the first place. Could you check at which point this is created first (as, ld, ld -shared)? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand weigand(a)informatik.uni-erlangen.de

2 4

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> Patrik, that was probably one of the most well-written > arguments I have > heard against the DMCA. Thank you, my immidiate reaction when proof reading it was that it was not entirely clear but I didn't feel I had time to improve it more. The arguement is not really water tight it assumes that you legally can reverse engineer, implement and publish an existing Digital Rights Managagement scheme. All of this is possible because of the duality between the rights management and circumvention. Any attempt to partition the set of devices in two parts will fail since you mathematically will be able to prove that they are equal and thus the arbitrary line chosen in the beginning doesn't really exist. However note that there are three solutions to the problem. 1. The DMCA protects nothing and are totally meaningless. 2. The DMCA are logically inconsistant and thereby null and void. 3. The DMCA will forbid digital rights management without authorization as well. The only thing that can save you is if you can pry a crack in it somewhere by find some kind of allowed digital rights management or circumvention because of some other reason, like constitional issues. If you even have one crack, then only possible case is 1, because of the reason given above. Note that 3 would mean that making an exact copy of some a device will be illegal if it contained any kind of digital right mangagement, thereby granting it a perpetual patent protection if it was hardware alternativly perpetual copyright protection if it was software. This kind of argument are not really new, however the arguments I have seen used it when talking about protected works. I'm talking about _devices_ that are authorized to "play" such works. Not being an expert on constitional issues I will say nothing more than that I think it would be unlikely that it is not so. > Too bad probably only Wine > developers will see it. I don't think it would be a useful argument to use in court it is much to abstract for normal Judges to understand. Better stick to constitional issue I think. > Ever thought of becoming a lawyer? ;-) No, I hate lawyers. :-) BTW, concerning reverse engineering any law against reverse engineering will have similar logical problems as DMCA since if some things are legal to reverse engineer it will be possible to using a similar step by step method transform this to something of the other side of any arbitrary line. Fortunately no such law exists AFAIK.

1 0

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > Patrik, > > > > > > You are most likely correct. Eventually the court system > > > will get their > > > head out of their ass and figure this out. > > > > I hope so. > > There's optimism for you - they've had their heads there for > years, why > change now? They're just getting comfortable... What do you mean? Who are getting comfortable? The courts? > > > At the moment it > > > seems to me > > > like its way up in there and they are going "Damn, it's > dark in here". > > > > Well, since the DMCA IMHO is logically inconsistant, that > is not very > > suprising. I interpret Judge Kaplan opinion in the DeCSS as "I don't > > really understand this, but if I blame it on Congress and give the > > plaintiff the victory I will probably look less a fool in > the eyes of > > my peers". > > Perhaps. Some of the Slashdot comments on the matter won't > have helped, > though... With peers I was refering to fellow and especially superior court Judges not just anybody that criticized him. What Judge Kaplan basicly said was this is, judging from the letter of the law, what Congress meant and if if they didn't mean this, they should have put it more clearly and if so it is their fault not mine. Shifting blame is quite popular in all sectors of society. :-) > > > Even my dad could easily see the argument that > > > restricting someone from writing a program is really > really braindead > > > (although he has done coding way back in the day). His > > > response was that > > > eventually the court system will figure it out and it'll be > > > over and done > > > with. Seems to be much the same as your response. > > > > Yes, approximately, but don't forget that in the worst case laws can > > be changed and in the meantime enforcing it will be close to > > impossible. > > Indeed. It'll probably survive for a while, but with more and > more holes > being cut... More holes? It is already has holes big as barn doors. :-) One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows. If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible enforce it. ;-) Of course a one line patch making a critical function always return TRUE or something might be able to disable it for people that don't like it. :-)

2 1

Re: psdrv: map Courier New to Courier
by Ian Pilcher 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Huw D M Davies wrote: > > Great! Well the Windows 2000 PS driver stores the font sub table > under the value name "TTFontSubTable" in the printer driver's > PrinterDriverData registry key. To do this we need to implement > Get/SetPrinterData (if you give me a couple of days I'll do it). The > data associated with TTFontSubTable is just a set of 2n \0 > terminated strings the final one terminated by 2 \0 > (i.e. REG_MULTISZ). The actual configuring should go on in the > printer setup property sheet. Hmmm, fancy learning a little of the > Win32 api? > I just spent some time poking around in the Registry of my Windows 2000 system. Neither "TTFontSubTable" or "FontSubTable" appears anywhere. (I have printers installed that use both the Adobe and Microsoft Post- Script drivers.) In fact, when I searched on "Helvetica" the only things I found that looked like font substitution tables were under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\ Shared Tools\Font Mapping and HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\ CurrentVersion\FontSubstitutes. Another point of interest -- none of the printer properties dialogs seem to allow me to configure the font substitution, even though I have "TrueType Font: Substitute with Device Font" set in the Advanced Options of the Apple LaserWriter 12/640 PS driver. > > OK, I've just submitted G|SetPrinterData implementations to > wine-patches - please use these instead of direct Reg apis. (it should > make life easier anyway. > > You basically want > > HANDLE hprn; > OpenPrinterA("Wine PostScript Driver", &hprn, NULL); > SetPrinterDataA(hprn, "FontSubTable" /*or whatever*/, REG_MULTI_SZ, pData, size); > ClosePrinter(hprn); > > where pData is a list of \0 terminated strings that make up the table, > finally terminated by a double \0. > > Reading the data back is almost the same using GetPrinterDataA So is "FontSubTable" what we want to use? It should be easy enough for me to have the driver use GetPrinterData and set up a simple array when it is initialized. (Although it does seem a little weird to have the driver calling OpenPrinter; is this OK?) > > I think we should also allow the Wine config file to override what's > > in the registry. > > Not really convinced about this. I'd like to move all of the psdrv > stuff out of the config file (which afterall is just a bit of the > registry) into its correct place under > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Printers\Print > The configuration should all be done via a GUI control. Two points: 1) How can a user get this information into the Registry until the GUI control is written? (I hope you weren't thinking that this is some- think I'm capable of doing. Me stupid procedural guy; OO GUI stuff make head feel oogey!) 2) Just because people use Wine to run Windows applications, doesn't mean that they've bought into the "everything should be GUI" philosophy; some of us actually *like* ASCII configuration files. > > In the old style, I would have suggested something of the form: > > > > Windows Font = X LFD, PostScript font name > > > > This would seem to be relatively straightforward to implement, and it > > would bring a small measure of sanity to the area. (I currently have > > both 'MS Sans Serif' and 'Ms Sans Serif' fonts, because the X server and > > the PostScript driver don't agree on what the font should be called!) > > This should all be a lot easier when I get a FreeType engine bolted on > to gdi. Then psdrv,x11drv,ttydrv(?) will all have access to the same > data and thus consistancy should not be a problem. I actually see a manual font configuration as a *very* small step in this direction. At least it will let Wine control it's view of what fonts are available, rather than trying to make intelligent guesses based on the X font list and the PostScript driver. It does assume a certain intelligence on the user's part; mapping the core Windows fonts to X fonts that aren't installed on the system would be "bad", but it shouldn't be too hard to supply a reasonable default configuration. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher pilcher(a)concentric.net ========================================================================

2 4

RE: Misc / Unicode
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> > I know this comes from from someone who just forgot to put > a trailing > > '\0'. But still. > > Sounds like a job for winapi_check ;-) Yes. However it will not be so easy since winapi_check doesn't have a complete C parser. It currently skips these kind of lines, so don't hold your breath. > BTW, Is Alexandre away? I should guess so. > I haven't seen any cvs commits for a week... Neither have I.

1 0

Re: Misc / Unicode
by Dmitry Timoshkov 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

"Francois Gouget" <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > <rant> > I checked the other cases and I have this question. Why does everyone > use 0 instead of '\0', 0 instead of FALSE, and '\0' instead of NULL? MS > even does the reverse and uses NULL in places where '\0' or 0 would have > been more appropriate. Man, if you know what you're doing prove it and > use the appropriate form: either 0, '\0' or NULL. > I know this comes from from someone who just forgot to put a trailing > '\0'. But still. > </rant> IMO it doesn't matter in the most cases, if you do not mix pointer data type (NULL) and others. '\0' == 0, and even better to use 0, because it automatically get casted by the compiler to the appropriate data type.

1 0

Re: Misc / Unicode
by Jon Griffiths 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> I know this comes from from someone who just forgot to put a trailing > '\0'. But still. Sounds like a job for winapi_check ;-) BTW, Is Alexandre away? I haven't seen any cvs commits for a week... 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: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> Patrik, > > You are most likely correct. Eventually the court system > will get their > head out of their ass and figure this out. I hope so. > At the moment it > seems to me > like its way up in there and they are going "Damn, it's dark in here". Well, since the DMCA IMHO is logically inconsistant, that is not very suprising. I interpret Judge Kaplan opinion in the DeCSS as "I don't really understand this, but if I blame it on Congress and give the plaintiff the victory I will probably look less a fool in the eyes of my peers". > Personally I am glad there are people that are very > passionate about these > issues because someone has to bitch about it and start > getting normal people > thinking about it. Actually I don't think normal people will understand or care very much until it directly affects them, like why can't I record this TV program. > Even my dad could easily see the argument that > restricting someone from writing a program is really really braindead > (although he has done coding way back in the day). His > response was that > eventually the court system will figure it out and it'll be > over and done > with. Seems to be much the same as your response. Yes, approximately, but don't forget that in the worst case laws can be changed and in the meantime enforcing it will be close to impossible.

2 1

Re: Misc / Unicode
by Huw D M Davies 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 08:51:45PM -0800, Francois Gouget wrote: > Index: include/richedit.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/cvs/wine/wine/include/richedit.h,v > retrieving revision 1.4 > diff -u -r1.4 richedit.h > --- include/richedit.h 2001/01/22 19:25:27 1.4 > +++ include/richedit.h 2001/01/29 11:01:27 > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ > #define cchTextLimitDefault 0x7fff > > #define RICHEDIT_CLASS20A "RichEdit20A" > -#define RICHEDIT_CLASS20W L"RichEdit20W" > +static const WCHAR RICHEDIT_CLASS20W[] = { 'R','i','c','h','E','d','i','t','2','0','W' }; Doesn't this want a trailing 0 ? Huw. -- Dr. Huw D M Davies | Clarendon Laboratory h.davies1(a)physics.ox.ac.uk | Parks Road Tel: +44 1865 272390 | Oxford OX1 3PU Fax: +44 1865 272400 | UK

1 0

Re: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> "Paul E. Merrell" wrote: > > > "Hypothetically, similar efforts taken by others to > > reverse-engineer Microsoft Windows could be deemed justifiable > > if the aim of those efforts were to make other companies' > > programs, designed for Windows, run on an operating system > > other than Windows. This assumes that the 9th Circuit ruling > > holds up." [snip] > As Paul mentioned in the quote he selected, the key item > involves moving an application to a > different platform. Application "portability" may legally no > longer require "porting"! It may > instead allow for "OS Compatibility Layers" to be written > instead. This may also drive a needed > wedge into the notion of migrating applications into the OS, > a strategy MS has evolved into a fine > art. One thing that is important to note is unless you do an internal redesign of your application "porting" will involve some sort of compabillity layer. The difference is whether you have it distributed as part of your application or whether you distribute it seperately. In fact Wine can, in some meaning be both, depending whether you use Wine to run the PE executable or whether you dynamically link with Winelib or whether you statically link with Winelib. In short if you try do make a legal difference between different kind of porting you will get all sorts of logical inconsistancies. > This affects far more than Wine: One project that comes to > mind is MAME (games). There are many > more seemingly similar projects that are NOT affected, such > as MOL(Mac-on-Linux), Win4Lin, Plex86, > VmWare and probably several others that actually run the > target OS, not emulate (clone) it. > > An extreme interpretation of this decision could be as > follows: If I need a reason to legally > clone a new feature in some market-leading desktop OS, all I > need to do is find an app (any app) > that uses that feature, then declare my intent to make that > app run under some other (any other) > OS. It does not matter if the feature being emulated is > "documented" or not. Taken further, it One thing to note is that "documented", as I guess you suggest by quoteing it, is a very vague term. If you are intelligent and knowledgable enough you can simply look at the binary and "read" what it does as accurately, and in some meaning even more so, as a less knowledgable person could read any existing documentation that might even be incorrect. In short trying to make legal differance of what is reverse enginering or what is not has severe problems. > may even be possible to dispose of the specific API used to > implement the feature, and use a > different one instead. > > Eventually (assuming this decision survives), the courts will > see that ALL such forms of reverse > engineering should be legal WITHOUT the necessity of an app to port. Probably, any alternative will have either severe logical problems or will be complete arbitrary, I think. > However, this notion still needs to be more fully explored > via additional cases before its full > scope can be determined. Presently, the scope appears to be > very restricted: The article points > out that the DeCSS decision would probably not be affected in > any way. In the current > environment, this is probably true. But what if you can > convince the courts to view DVD "content" > as a "program"! While this may seem obviously true to > technical folks, especially those who > create multimedia apps and content for a living, it may take > many visits to court to properly > communicate this understanding to the legal system. I think from the legal defintion of a program in US Law it should be obvious for a court as well. I don't remember exactly what it said but a remember making that reflection when I read it. > Anyway, since most of the available content security systems > ARE software, and MS has already > migrated theirs into the latest versions of Windows, this > entire issue already has the potential > to snowball completely out of the control of OS and content > companies, and possibly even Congress > itself. > > With the major media companies trying to tie software > protection and content protection together > under copyright law (via laws such as DMCA and UCITA), this > may be just the wedge needed to pry > them back apart. Note that the issues of the legallity of Wine and DeCSS is connected in an abstract sense. Among them the Amicus Brief from the 65(!) Law Professors in the DeCSS argued that forbidding DeCSS, regardless of whether it violates the first amendment or not, lies outside the scope of the power of the Congress because of the 10th amendment. Following the same reasoning then _all_ reverse engineering obviously does so as well. > One can only hope, and patiently wait for the court decisions... Personally I don't worry that much. First of all I live in Europe secondly any kind of regulation of these kind of issues will IMHO be either logically inconsistant or completely arbitrary. Neither of the cases are likely to survive in the long run for several reason among them. 1. Constitional/"Human rights" reasons 2. Legal enforcement is close to impossible 3. It is unlikely to serve the public good

2 1

Strange window message / queue behaviour
by Marcus Meissner 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Hi, I have an application that handles several text edit controls. At one point it flips from the first to the second (after you have entered the fourth character). This is done by a function, which does (simplified) this: { DWORD startsel,endsel; PostMessageA(hwnd1,EM_GETSEL,&startsel,&endsel); SetFocus(hwnd2); PostMessageA(hwnd2,EM_SETSEL,0,0); /* ... */ CallWindowProcA(hwnd,....); return; } According to the +relay,+edit trace the EM_GETSEL is executed way _AFTER_ the return from the function, so, since it uses stackvalues, it then smashes the stack somewhere else. My suspicion is that SetFocus() in Windows drains all posted messages by doing something like: while (PeekMessage()) { TranslateMessage(); DispatchMessage(); } but I do not really know. Does anybody have more knowledge of this? The respective trace is here, starting with the posting of the message with the pointers into the stack: Ciao, Marcus Call user32.455: PostMessageA(000006b4,000000b0,40599904,40599908) ret=0041a99b fs=008f Ret user32.455: PostMessageA() retval=00000001 ret=0041a99b fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041a9ab fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041a9ab fs=008f Call user32.527: SetFocus(0000074c) ret=0041a9b2 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFOCU S,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,00000008,0000074c,00000000) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFO CUS,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFO CUS,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFOCU S,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOCUS ,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041aa7c fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041aa7c fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,0000074c,00000007,000006b4,00000000) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOC US,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOC US,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOCUS ,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.527: SetFocus() retval=000006b4 ret=0041a9b2 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041a9cc fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041a9cc fs=008f Call user32.455: PostMessageA(0000074c,000000b1,00000000,00000000) ret=0041a9d3 fs=008f Ret user32.455: PostMessageA() retval=00000001 ret=0041a9d3 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,00000102,00000048,00230001) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,w p=00000048,lp=00230001) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,w p=00000048,lp=00230001) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,wp= 00000068,lp=00230001) retval=00000000 After this it directly returns from the function. trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL32 ,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,000000b0,40599904,40599908) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL 32,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL 32,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) retval=00040004 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00040004 ret=00000004 fs=008f ... but still uses its stack values here. faulted at EIP=0x00000004, CR2=0x00000004, EAX 0x00040004 EBX 0x407936fc, ECX 0x00000001, EBP 0x40599950 EDI 0x40599904, ESP 0x002b:0x40599908 FS 0x008f, pid 1772

3 2

Re: Strange window message / queue behaviour
by gerard patel 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

At 12:00 AM 6/2/01 +0100, you wrote: >last paragraph), there's also the possibility that Windows recognizes that >it's a message known to contain pointers, and so just drops the message, >so that EM_GETSEL is simply never dispatched? Indeed under NT4 such a call is discarded by Windows (returns 0, error is set to ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER) Gerard

1 0

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 02:38 PM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >Well, examining how Windows does it can be done, >but I don't think it's too useful, as I think that the current approach >with that fix should work fine. > >> Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from >> another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the >> remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO. >I don't think the "other thread" is important. >What is important is the fact that if we don't get frequent messages, >the dialog will stay open without that fix. Well, if the current thread is active, it's in the dialog code I guess since DialogBox is, well, modal. And if it's in the dialog code, the code run should be in dialog box procedure, so it should be in a message handling. So any EndDialog is followed by a return to the dialog loop. I am not quite sure of that, though. >Windows definitely does NOT do it this way, of course >(well, I'd be surprised if it actually did ;-). >This is just a (crude, if you want) hack to make it work. >And I figured sending WM_NULL shouldn't hurt. >I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite the whole dialog handling >(e.g. to do it like Windows), but I don't think it matters at all >at the moment. >There are much more important things to do. Possibly, but it's important at least to add a comment saying that it is a hack.... Correct documentation can wait you think ? Wine is full of strange code that nobody knows why it's here already :-/ Gerard

2 1

Corel Draw for Linux
by Uwe Bonnes 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Hallo, somebidy fronm the local Linux User Group desperatlly looks for Corel Draw for Linux in Germany. He wasn't able to find anything? Looking araound only brings misleading Corel statements. Does anybody know what is the status of Corel Draw for Linux? Any source in Germany? Bye Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

2 1

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 10:37 AM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >> I can't see this WM_NULL with Winsight. Maybe it's a bug in >> Winsight :-/, but are you sure it's not some framework that is >> sending it ? >Hmm, what are you talking about ? > >And I don't quite understand what you're investigating here... ;-) *I* don't understand what it is supposed to fix. Using Winsight was a rather brainless attempt to see what is happening under Windows. Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO. Anyway, I tested your patch with a thread I launched before the DialogBox call; after 15" of sleep the thread is calling EndDialog. To add fun I added a WM_NULL handler in the dialog procedure to display a MessageBox; under Windows the MessageBox does not fire, under Wine with your patch, it does (test app available) So probably Windows does not do it this way (or the WM_NULL message is filtered). It probably does not matter much, granted. Gerard

2 1

wine-patches working?
by Ian Pilcher 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Is anyone else not getting stuff that's sent to wine-patches? -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher pilcher(a)concentric.net ========================================================================

3 2

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 08:52 PM 30/1/01 +0100, you (Andreas Mohr) wrote: <snip> >Just send WM_NULL to unblock the dialog's message loop after setting DF_END. I can't see this WM_NULL with Winsight. Maybe it's a bug in Winsight :-/, but are you sure it's not some framework that is sending it ? Gerard

2 1

recording sound?
by Thomas Flynn 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Has anyone tried recording sound? It works fine under Linux (with grecord for example), but I have I windows app that does a pretty simple record and playback. Audio playing is fine, but recording fails (I get a stupid meaningless windows dialog that says recording failed and that the error code was -8602 or something). I was just wondering if perhaps recording hasn't been touched yet, or whether I had run across a special case that isn't handled yet. thanks, tom -- "Mongooses are famous for their snake-fighting ability, and are almost always victorious because of their speed, agility, and timing and also because of their thick coat."

2 1

Re: debugger fix
by Mike McCormack 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Hi John, As i understand, Alexandre wants to get rid of the service thread completely. He rejected an async i/o patch of mine that used the service thread on these grounds. The server would also need to wait on the service thread somehow... something else that might be frowned upon. i'm pretty sure that currently there isn't any way to do this except use the service thread though :-( Perhaps it'd be nice to tie up all these memory issues with some kind of kernel patch... a way to read/write and generally mess with another process's memory that was broader and more efficient that p-trace. Mike > Is there any reason _not_ to use the service > thread of the target process to perform cross-process ? > virtualAlloc/Protect etc? > > Jon ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack@looksmart.com.au ph +61 2 9427 2196 __________________________________________________________________ Get your own free web email at http://www.looksmart.com.au LookSmart Australia

2 1

Reverse engineering court decision
by Paul E. Merrell 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

"Hypothetically, similar efforts taken by others to reverse-engineer Microsoft Windows could be deemed justifiable if the aim of those efforts were to make other companies' programs, designed for Windows, run on an operating system other than Windows. This assumes that the 9th Circuit ruling holds up." <http://www.planetit.com/techcenters/docs/security/news/PIT20010123S0001/1?s…> -- Paul E. Merrell, E-Mail: pem(a)televar.com WordPerfect Links: http://www.wpwin.com/links.html WordPerfect Linux Links: http://www.qwkscreen.com/WPLinuxLinks.html WP8 FAQ: http://w3.one.net/~kgibson/wp8faq.htm WP7 Help: http://home.earthlink.net/~tlhuffman/wp7/wp7help.htm Search WP web sites: http://www.wpwriter.com/You_Find_the_Answer/you_find_the_answer.html

2 1

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