wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

4 participants
84464 discussions

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

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