wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

3 participants
84400 discussions

Re: PATCH: revert version change
by Francois Gouget 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Marcus Meissner wrote: > Hi, > > There was following change to misc/version.c: > revision 1.44 > date: 2001/07/27 23:57:38; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 > Bob Goodwin <goodie1(a)pacbell.net> > Fix the 16bit win95 version. > > This makes for instance InstallShield, that uses DOS3CALLs to check for win95, > report a Bad Windows Version. (Installer of Monkey Island 3) > > Reference wine-devel post is: > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2001/07/0085.html > > If there is a testprogram, I can still boot Windows 95... Ladislav Sladecek <lsla(a)post.cz> posted a program to check the 16bit version back in august: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2001/08/0275.html I think the revert is the right thing to do. And this is what I get on the Win95 computers I have access to. I also recently found that quite a few installers are not happy with 0x0304. I attached Ladislav's 16bit test application and also attached a application I wrote that dumps what the 32bit GetVersion and GetVersionEx return. Bob, how did you come up with 0x07000304? Was it from the Daggerfall application or from a windows computer? If the latter, then could you run the attached tests and report what the results? Here are the result of the tests I have done here: * Win95 (the original version): It does indeed return 0x5f03 in 16bit mode. The CSDVersion does not seem to match in 32bit mode: GetVersion: version = 0xc0000004 GetVersionInfoEx: size = 148 major = 4 minor = 0 build = 0x40003b6 platform = VER_PLATFORM_WIN32_WINDOWS CSDVersion= "" vs. "Win95" in Wine I don't know if this could cause problems. * Win98SE: Returns 0x5f03 in 16bit mode, like Wine. No problem in 16bit mode. In 32bit mode I get some discrepencies, probably because this is SE and not the original 98: GetVersion: version = 0xc0000a04 GetVersionInfoEx: size = 148 major = 4 minor = 10 build = 0x40a08ae vs. 0x40A07CE in Wine platform = VER_PLATFORM_WIN32_WINDOWS CSDVersion= " A " vs. "Win98" in Wine * NT4: Everything is fine. Tonight I hope to get results for Win2000 and WinXP. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ RFC 2549: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2549.txt IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service

1 1

Re: usleep in winmm/wineoss audio
by Simon Britnell 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

--- eric pouech <eric.pouech(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > after, rereading my old code, there's nothing wrong > (at first glance) here some invocations (like close, > reset) need to be synchronous > (the calling thread blocks until the rendering > thread is done with the message), some others (like > adding a wavehdr for play back) > are asynchronous, hence the difference I added a WaitForSingleObject late last PM as an experiment. The results were ... interesting. The first thing I noticed was that my problem attaching to the process went away, ie. winedbg started to work. The second thing that happened was that the problem I experience went from being intermittant to constant and now also invariably throws a page fault exception (in the same place it intermittantly threw an exception). Tracing back from that page fault is proving difficult as the page fault occurs with a value that's been stored on the heap at some prior point in the execution. Any tips for rapid location of where it's being stored? I suspect it's a null return from a wine system call. > so, back to square 1. can you at least trace the > program with > -debugmsg +wave (and still capture the hanging ?) Unfortunately, turning -debugmsg +wave on has so far made the problem go away. I'll have another couple of attempts this PM as its been quite intermittant. Also, it occurs to me to try -debugmsg +wave with the (broken) WaitForSingleObject patch I mentioned above. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com

3 8

Re: Shlwapi functions _29, _30, _31
by Alexandre Julliard 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

"Guy L. Albertelli" <galberte(a)neo.lrun.com> writes: > I assume that the differences may be due to revisions of the Unicode > standard, but that is an assumption only. Yes, there are some differences between our Unicode tables and the Windows ones. It shouldn't really matter, and if it does it's easy to fix. The important thing is to make sure everything uses the tables in libwine_unicode so that there is only one place to fix if necessary. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Shlwapi functions _29, _30, _31
by Guy L. Albertelli 24 Oct '01

24 Oct '01

Alexandre, Thank you for simplifing these functions when you committed them. I thought you might want to know that they do act slightly differently from the versions in the native shlwapi.dll (version 5.50.4807.2300): _29 (iswspace) - extra TRUE for 0x1680, 0x202f _30 (iswblank) - missing TRUE for 0x3000 _31 (iswpunct) - missing TRUE for 0x00aa, 0x00b5, 0x00bb, 0x0192, 0x05ba - extra TRUE for 0x02df, 0x02ea-0x02ee, 0x0346-0x034e, 0x0361, 0x0488-0x0489, 0x058a, 0x0591-0x05a1, 0x05a3-0x05af, 0x05c4, 0x0653-0x0655 (+ probably many more - I stopped comparing here). I assume that the differences may be due to revisions of the Unicode standard, but that is an assumption only. Guy Albertelli <<galberte(a)neo.lrun.com>>

1 0

Re: The big winsock patch
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes: > Make winsock.h and winsock2.h independent from the Unix headers > Make them compatible with both the Unix C headers and the MSVCRT > headers > Ensure compatibility with the Unix headers via the USE_WS_PREFIX macro > Add WINE_NOWINSOCK: prevents winsock.h from being included > from windows.h when defined > Add ws2tcpip.h, move definitions to the right header I don't like the WS_API preprocessor abuse. It would be much better to declare function prototypes and typedefs explicitly, even if it requires a bit more typing. Your solution makes it hard to find out what gets defined when, and will break tools that extract information from header files. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: mediatype patch
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Ove Kaaven <ovehk(a)ping.uio.no> writes: > Save a disk file's media type in the server object. OK for the storing part, but why do you return it in the get_file_info request? Shouldn't it rather be in something like get_mapping_info? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

PATCH: add Win95 OSR2 to versions
by David Elliott 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

On 2001.10.23 13:55 Marcus Meissner wrote: > Hi, > > There was following change to misc/version.c: > revision 1.44 > date: 2001/07/27 23:57:38; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +1 > -1 > Bob Goodwin <goodie1(a)pacbell.net> > Fix the 16bit win95 version. > > This makes for instance InstallShield, that uses DOS3CALLs to check for > win95, > report a Bad Windows Version. (Installer of Monkey Island 3) > > Reference wine-devel post is: > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2001/07/0085.html > > If there is a testprogram, I can still boot Windows 95... > > Ciao, Marcus > > Changelog: > revert 16bit win95 version back to original value. Fixes > InstallShield installer version check. > Your changelog is incorrect.. That is actually the DOS version you are changing, not the Windows version. Furthermore, here is a patch to go along with this that implements Win95OSR2 version. I have had this in my tree for MONTHS but never submitted it. This is REQURIED for some programs because the DOS for OSR2 is 7.1 and the DOS for Win95 Gold (MSes term for the original relase) is 7.0. I think I added it specifically so I could run COMMAND.COM (well, at least get past incorrect DOS version). This goes true for all of the DOS utils from 95OSR2. Honestly, Win95OSR2 should have been called Windows 96 and released as an actual product, it is completely different from original win95 in many core areas (But not in any UI ways, hence MSes logic of well, nobody will notice the difference by looking at it, better keep it as the same product). Changelog: Add Windows 95 OSR2 version info -Dave P.S. Sorry about the extra .txt extension, seems that Balsa uses it to determine whether the file is application/octet-stream or text/plain and I wanted it to be text/plain (will figure this out later).

1 0

error at winelib program
by Guilherme Kunz 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Hi, All programs was compiled with winemaker. $ ./dlg32 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb dlg32 core GNU gdb 5.0 .... Core was generated by `./dlg32'. Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. Reading symbols from /usr/local/lib/libntdll.so...Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ winedbg dlg32 Console: Making console complex (creating an xterm)... xterm: unable to open font "vga", trying "fixed".... passed master doesn't match slave name I am using: gcc 2.96 kernel 2.2.19 mfc 4.2 compiled wine by CVS 20011023 Any idea ?? What is the problem with winedbg ?? and gdb ?? i already had tried with gcc 2.95 !! Thank You

2 1

ok.. narrowed down problems with solaris...
by Roger Fujii 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

after a whole bunch of head banging, I finally found out what is causing wine to crash (though I don't know what the fix is, but I figure I should ask first before doing more head banging. It turns out there are strange things happening in two places. The first problem is that it fails to work when compiled with the XFree86 (4.1.0) includes/libraries, but works if you compile/link against the openwindows libraries (or, at least, it works HERE). Note that the X server that is running is 4.1.0. I suppose this might be a threading issue (given how notoriously unsafe X is for multitheading). The second problem is that I could only get it working with the openwindows libraries if I truncate my font paths. So it looks like something goes awry when you have a LOT of fonts in the font path. When I started wine up with only 2 font dirs in my fontpath, it came up fine. My initial guess would be something to do with malloc/sbrk and all the mapping that is done with the dlls, but that's pure speculation on my part. Any comments? -r -- Roger Fujii <rmf(a)lookhere.com> Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....

1 0

Re: SystemParametersInfo / GetSystemMetrics patches
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Andriy Palamarchuk <apa3a(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Do you think it is better to do lazy loading for most > parameters? Yes definitely. > I'll think about it more. Originally I planned to > broadcast change notification across processes and use > the reload function in other process to refresh values > from registry. The problem with this approach is when > a parameter is changed without saving. A possibility could to create a volatile registry branch to save parameters that aren't permanently saved. This way they would be accessible from other processes. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

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