wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

4 participants
84472 discussions

Treeview fix
by Jeff Smith 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

Intro: Once I got wine to finally execute the native regedit, treeview was bringing it down. Background: I discovered treeview uses DSA's and Dimi recently changed the max element number in DSA's to 0x7fff (SHRT_MAX). Note this value has the special meaning in DSA_InsertPtr functions of 'add new element to end of array'. Problem: INT_MAX (0x7fffffff) was being passed from treeview to DSA_InsertPtr. This caused failure returns and eventually a seg fault. Conclusion: This patch fixes the problem (according to the style of other calls to DSA_InsertPtr), and native regedit now works. Questions for further thought: I wonder, should 0x7fff be used explicitly, or should SHRT_MAX be used in places like this instead? Changelog: Treeview fix due to change in maximum DSA size. -- Jeff S. Index: dlls/comctl32/treeview.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/comctl32/treeview.c,v retrieving revision 1.103 diff -u -r1.103 treeview.c --- dlls/comctl32/treeview.c 6 Sep 2002 19:41:18 -0000 1.103 +++ dlls/comctl32/treeview.c 23 Oct 2002 04:12:53 -0000 @@ -949,7 +949,7 @@ if (!newItem) return NULL; - if (DPA_InsertPtr(infoPtr->items, INT_MAX, newItem) == -1) + if (DPA_InsertPtr(infoPtr->items, 0x7fff, newItem) == -1) { COMCTL32_Free(newItem); return NULL; @@ -2885,7 +2885,7 @@ for (child = item->firstChild; child != NULL; child = child->nextSibling) { - if (DPA_InsertPtr(list, INT_MAX, child) == -1) + if (DPA_InsertPtr(list, 0x7fff, child) == -1) { DPA_Destroy(list); return NULL; _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

2 1

Re: using native regedit
by Jeff Smith 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

I agree that the example should be changed to indicate a 'valid' entry if this is the way it is supposed to be. This would have saved me a lot of trouble and confusion. Now I can work on getting native regedit working again. -- Jeff S. >Shouldn't we update the sample entry in documentation/sample/config ? > > ; you can specify applications too >-"*\\notepad.exe" = "native, builtin" >+"notepad.exe" = "native, builtin" > ; default for all other dlls > "*" = "builtin, native" > > > It's the way it's supposed to work, because it mimics the way > > loadorder works for dlls: a simple "regedit.exe" matches only if > > regedit is in the system directory. Otherwise you need to specify the > > full path, or use a wildcard entry like "*regedit.exe". > > > > -- > > Alexandre Julliard > > julliard(a)winehq.com _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

2 1

Re: using native regedit
by Jeff Smith 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

Found something: it works if I fully qualify the command name. I was trying this in the DllOverrides / command-line respectively: "regedit.exe" = "native, builtin" --dll regedit.exe=n,b What I have to do for it to work is this: "C:\\Windows\\regedit.exe" = "native, builtin" --dll C:\\Windows\\regedit.exe=n,b I still do not think this is *exactly* as it should be, but I'm finally on the track to figuring it out. -- Jeff S. _________________________________________________________________ Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

3 2

[RFC] Adding an include/wine/wine directory?
by Patrik Stridvall 23 Oct '02

23 Oct '02

As some of you probably know I have been working on compiling Wine on Windows using Microsoft Visual C/C++ (MSVC). Even though it doesn't really work that well yet there have been at least some success. Anyway recently I have began trying to get the Wine tests to compile and work using MSVC. More specifically I have been trying to get the my generated tests for data structure packing (tests/generated.c) to work. This currently works quite well. A few patches regarding errors found coming soon. However there are at least two intresting ways to compile and run the tests on Windows. 1. Compile using the Wine headers. 2. Compile using the Microsoft headers. Currently only (1) works in a portable way. To get (2) to work I had to add the directory of the Microsoft includes to the begining of the include path. This is not very portable since it differs from installation to installation. I have currently hardcoding my specific directory. The above have to be done because the Wine tests includes include/wine/test.h as thus ..\..\..\include (or similar depending on directory depth have to be added the the include). This overides the Microsoft headers!!! Microsoft C unlike GNU C have no option to avoid this other than adding the path the Microsoft include directory which as I previously mention varies depend on installation. :-) However I finally think I have found a portable solution, that will work not only with the Wine test but also with Wine itself (eventhough that is perhaps less instresting right now). We currently have the directory structure like include: Wine's version of Windows headers include/wine: Wine's internal and "extension" headers I would like to have a directory structure like include: Wine's version of Windows headers include/wine: Wine's internal headers include/wine/wine: Wine's "extension" headers With "extension" headers I mean that headers that are exported and usuable by Winelib applications. This would allow me to, using MSVC, just do /I ..\..\..\include\wine instead of the current very ugly and unportable /I d:\program files\microsoft visual studio\vc98\include /I ..\..\..\include So concretely what I think needs to be done (not tested) is the following. cd include/wine mkdir wine mv exception.h test.h unicode.h wine # Then include/Makefile.in needs to be changed accordingly as well. # In principle all the include/wine/ files named in include/Makefile.in # should be moved as well. However the files named above is enough for # the Wine tests AFAICS. --- Make.rules.in 19 Oct 2002 17:15:00 -0000 1.131 +++ Make.rules.in 21 Oct 2002 12:58:35 -0000 @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ LN = @LN@ LN_S = @LN_S@ TOOLSDIR = @TOOLSDIR@ -DIVINCL = -I$(SRCDIR) -I. -I$(TOPSRCDIR)/include -I$(TOPOBJDIR)/include $(EXTRAINCL) +DIVINCL = -I$(SRCDIR) -I. -I$(TOPSRCDIR)/include -I$(TOPOBJDIR)/include -I$(TOPSRCDIR)/include/wine $(EXTRAINCL) ALLCFLAGS = $(DIVINCL) $(CFLAGS) $(DEFS) $(OPTIONS) LD = @LD@ LDFLAGS = @LDFLAGS@ So what do you think? Note that compiling Winelib applications under Linux might benefit from this as well since it makes it easier to use the real Microsoft headers together the Wine extensions (wine/*.h). Sure currently GNU C chokes on this but one day some compiler (GNU C or some other) might not...

3 2

RE: [RFC] Adding an include/wine/wine directory?
by Patrik Stridvall 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > We could do that following instead: > > (1) /usr/include/wine => /usr/include/wine/windows > > (2) /usr/include/wine/wine => /usr/include/wine/windows/wine > > (3) /usr/include/wine/wine/wine => /usr/include/wine > > > > Also note (2) will disappear eventually. > > Well, it's somewhat better, but it's still too complex IMO. Where is the complexity? If you want to port a Window application, you add -I/usr/include/wine/windows and everything as much as like under Windows as possible. If you in addition wish to call some Wine "extension" no problem just do #include "wine/foo.h" or similar. If you just want to use the Windows API in an Unix application you need anything at all. Just do #include "wine/windows/wincrypt.h" and you're done. [Linking is a separate problem, of course. But then, this changes nothing as far as this is concerned] > Maybe what > we should do is put the (3) headers directly in /usr/include, like > /usr/include/wine_unicode.h. But this would work only if we don't have > many of them, so we probably want to work on simplifying this first. I can't see any principal difference between /usr/include/wine_foo.h or /usr/include/wine/foo.h None of them requires any -I. It is more a convention that if you have many .h you have a directory, if not, well then you can have a directory anyway, it is up to you. > Also note that this is not going to solve your problem, because > wine/test.h is more a category (2) header Well wine/test.h is really kind of a special case anyway it could be moved to programs/winetest/include/wine or something under whatever name it is not really a concern. Perhaps we should move programs/winetest/wtmain.c to test/ and make it a library similar to library/ and unicode/. This is what I did with MSVC, eventhough I did it in programs/winetest instead. > (or maybe you need a new > category for Wine internal headers that don't get installed). You mean for files like windef16.h? Well, in the long run such files really belongs in the dlls/* directories. In the extent that that can't they really are Wine "extension" that might as well be used by any Winelib application not just internally should IMHO be installed. But yes, we certainly need some place to put them in the meantime, since this isn't happing over night. However I think that they can remain in include/wine/ until we move them one by one. See below. > > PS. Of course we could move include/*.h to include/wine/windows or > > something like that but then it is no real use and beside it ruins > > the cvs patch log. Better stick to the ugly include/wine/wine > > solution interally IMHO. > > Not an option. If we have to move the files we'll move them; it's > better to avoid moving things around too much. but we shouldn't let > CVS limitations impose a broken structure. OK. > Now if we can find a non > broken structure that also doesn't involve moving files that's better. Perhaps this would work: mkdir library/wine mv include/wine/{library,port}.h library/wine mkdir unicode/wine mv include/wine/unicode.h unicode/wine mkdir dlls/ntdll/wine mv include/wine/exception.h dlls/ntdll/wine Sure it would mean a few more -I internally but it would not be that bad. Then during install all these files as well as some files from include/wine/ ends up in /usr/include/wine and the include/ files end up in /usr/include/wine/windows or /usr/include/wine/win32 not sure what is best. That would require moving a minimum of files. As before eventually far in the future include/wine/ would be empty. Transition done. We needn't move everything right now either. As mentioned before running the Wine test with the Microsoft headers currently AFAICS only requires that we fix wine/{exception,test,unicode}.h. Of course compiling every DLL with the Microsoft headers requires fixing all of include/wine/ but then as long as we have a solution when we get where eventually is good enough IMHO, doing that is no particular rush. Having the Wine tests work properly sooner rather than later is much more important though.

3 2

using native regedit
by Jeff Smith 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

3 2

Re: updated dlls/comctl32/commctrl.c comments
by Dimitrie O. Paun 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

On October 22, 2002 03:02 pm, Christian Neumair wrote: > Dimitrie started posting a header doc patch for listview.c, so I got > motivated and wrote the same thing for commctrl.c. > I hope it's complete. Thanks, Chris. In many respects, this is more important than code. For many reasons I will not go into here, I think it is vital that we have a header giving a _clear_ pictures of what remains to be done. I just hope others will do the same. -- Dimi.

1 0

Re: Don't return FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYMLINK
by Dimitrie O. Paun 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

On October 22, 2002 04:25 pm, Medland, Bill wrote: > diff105.diff Can you please insert such files in the body of the message? It gets combersome to review patches in attachments... -- Dimi.

1 0

RE: [RFC] Adding an include/wine/wine directory?
by Patrik Stridvall 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > I suggest that we gradually move the files in include/wine > > to include/wine/wine or in some cases other places like the DLL > > directories. Eventually, far in the future, the > include/wine directory > > will be empty (save for a wine directory). > > > > This provides a slow and steady migration path from the old > > to the new that doesn't have any of the problems you described. > > What more can you ask for? > > A clean solution? Seriously this is ugly as hell; It would have been nice if had been cleaner yes, but then you can't have everything can you? :-) Seriously, I think we can do a little better. See below. > especially when you > consider that after you install you will get Wine headers in > /usr/include/wine, /usr/include/wine/wine and > /usr/include/wine/wine/wine. Correct. [I think we understand each other at least this time] > Tell me this isn't confusing... First of all you have /usr/include/wine and /usr/include/wine/wine even today. Which already is a little confusing. But hey it works for most thing so I'm not complaining that much. But yes, it is a little confusing. Hmm. Thinking.... We could do that following instead: (1) /usr/include/wine => /usr/include/wine/windows (2) /usr/include/wine/wine => /usr/include/wine/windows/wine (3) /usr/include/wine/wine/wine => /usr/include/wine Also note (2) will disappear eventually. This would be very nice since now normal Winelib applications ie ports from Windows can do -I/usr/include/wine/windows regardless of whether they use the Wine "extensions" or not since #include "wine/test.h" for example will work without a -I. "Special" Winelib application could do #include "wine/windows/wincrypt.h" without any -I if somebody for example wanted to use the Windows encryption API in a normal Unix application. Hmm. Perhaps /usr/include/wine/windows should be /usr/include/wine/win32 instead, with perhaps /usr/include/wine/windows as symbolic link to /usr/include/wine/win32. But that is just details, what do you think in principle. > If you really want to make it possible to mix and match headers from > different sources, you need a more serious redesign of the whole > include layout, and you need to ensure that the normal case is at > least as easy and clean as it is today. I think the suggestion above would do nicely. Internally in the wine tree I think we might have to choose the ugly include/wine/wine solution, but we could install to the solution above which is what's really important. PS. Of course we could move include/*.h to include/wine/windows or something like that but then it is no real use and beside it ruins the cvs patch log. Better stick to the ugly include/wine/wine solution interally IMHO.

2 1

An RPC progress report
by Greg Turner 22 Oct '02

22 Oct '02

On Tuesday 22 October 2002 12:47 pm, you wrote: > Greg - > > I've been following the RPC merges lately, > looks like a lot of stuff added. I browsed > the code, but I couldn't really get a grasp > on some of it. That's OK, I'm not sure /I've/ got a grasp on some of it !! ;) > I was just wondering if > you'd like to write an update (short, long, > whatever) about what you've done, what's left > to do, major stumbling blocks, etc. I'll > include it in the next issue of Wine Weekly > News. Above what Ove already implemented, I really haven't done all that much. Frankly, in its current state, it is quite possible that the RPC work I am doing will /detract/ from the stability of wine, until the implementation is more complete. RPC is painfully complicated, and a victim of serious creeping featurism. Microsoft makes it worse by providing poorly documented extentions to the protocol, and a largely undocumented marshalling API (much of which developers typically don't have to learn because the API calls are generated by the MIDL compiler). My target right now is to get a "hello world" API invocation to work across processes using wine RPC. Once that is achieved, I plan to create a unit test for this. Then, we'll have a framework that we can begin to extend and implement "properly." I am not there yet, but I think I'm getting close. I just have to implement marshalling for strings, which, in theory, looks pretty easy. There are probably many bugs that need squashing before it works, and maybe some additional gaps in functionality that I don't even realize exist yet... but I do think I'm pretty near. Now, what remains to be done? Well, as Ove mentions in the TODO for his units, "a whole lot." Here are several things in no particular order: - widl is like MIDL for wine. For wine to be a useful RPC platform, quite a bit of work needs to be done here. widl currently doesn't generate stubs for RPC invocation -- it will need to; this is tricky because the MIDL compiler does some really wierd stuff. Then again, we don't neccesarily have to make widl work like MIDL, so it could be worse. - RPC has a quite featureful error handling mechanism; none of it is implemented right now. - The server portions of the patch don't seem to be getting accepted by Alexandre. My guess is that once I have a working test he'll conceed to let this in. To implement this properly is tricky and possibly beyond my abilities; Ove seems to think the right way to do this is to use LPC (Local Procedure Call, another undocumented monster). LPC has no implementation in wine and is not going to be trivial to create. - there are several different memory allocation schemes for MSRPC. I don't even understand what they all are yet, much less have them properly implemented. - MSRPC provides impersonation capabilities which currently are not possible to implement in wine. - Some transports are not yet implemented. The existing transport implementations are incomplete. (By transports I mean, tcp/ip, named-pipes, local procedure call, etc --- the various types of low-level plumbing that can be used to connect the client and the server). - Data marshalling is the means by which RPC represents data across process and machine boundaries. MSRPC extends NDR format for this. The wire protocol is mostly documented, but the MS API's to convert data-types in memory into NDR are not. This, alone, is a sizable chunk of work. - ORPC is RPC for OLE; once we have a working RPC framework, we can use it to implement out-of-process OLE client/server communications. This will be a huge win for wine. But again, it's a lot of work, and I'm no OLE expert (hell, I'm no RPC expert :) - Surely there is much more stuff I am forgetting. Like Ove said, it's "a whole lot" of stuff, approximately as big a project as, say, DirectX. Basically, RPC for wine is a huge beast of a project. IMO it is probably the biggest and most difficult-to-fill hole in wine's feature-completeness ATM. In the short term, don't expect any miracles --- I really doubt that I'm going to "solve" this (in my spare time!) anytime soon. But, once I start getting some results, I imagine others will be enticed to help out, as contributors like Ove already have. (To be clear: Ove enticed me, not the other way around: He did all the "real" work, and deserves way more credit than me for any success I may achieve in the near future). wish me luck, -- gmt "Oh, and of course, the fastest way to dig a tunnel is to dig at both sides." -- The Linux Advanced Routing HOWTO

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