wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

3 participants
84399 discussions

What is the @ in the function headers
by Bill Medland 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Quick question. What is the @ in a function header supposed to contain? Presumably it is the ordinal in the Dll. But what if the same function has different ordinals in different copies of the Dll? Bill

1 0

Re: Dont allow SetSelectorBase to change into an kernel region
by Alexandre Julliard 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: > If I only allow to set the selector base when (selector base + selector > limit) is smaller than 0x8000000, the application goes on and lets me read > an eprom plugged into the Galep3 Programmer. Is the appended fix a right > acceptable? No, it's legal to have selectors covering the entire address space. I'm afraid there is no good solution to this kind of problem. What does the app do under NT or with -winver nt40? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Some questions about TB_REPLACEBITMAP
by Marco Bizzarri 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Hi all. I'm trying to implement the TB_REPLACEBITMAP message in the comctrl32, and I would like to have some advice about the ImageList structure. The TB_REPLACEBITMAP provides (via the hInst, nID pair) the handle to the old bitmap and the handle to the new bitmap, as well as the number of button in the new bitmap. I think I could use the ImageList_Replace to actually replace the bitmaps. However, the ImageList_Replace function requires a number, which is the first bitmap to be replaced. How can I retrieve this information? For what I can see, once a bitmap has been added to the imagelist, no information about is is stored. I'm doing some tests, using a value (like 0) as the bitmap index, but this is of little help, of course. Any help will be appreciated. Bye Marco

1 0

Some questions about TB_REPLACEBITMAP
by Marco Bizzarri 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

1 0

Switching threads in winedbg
by Francois Gouget 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

Is it possible to switch threads in winedbg? I can use 'walk thread' to see a list of the threads of my application but I could not find how to get a backtrace of one of these other threads. It's not in the Wine Developper's Guide and I could not find it from the source. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ In a world without fences who needs Gates?

2 1

Dose wine people hate Solaris?
by EriK W 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

I have posted my question for compiling Wine in solaris x86 for 2 weeks, seems no anybody even has a bit interest. Do you guys hate solaris? :) I checked almost all the documents and faq, except it mentioned wine works with Solaris, there almost have no other info for it at all. Does anybody has even a suggestion for me? pls don't tell me nuke my solaris. :)

5 8

Re: Documenting functions
by Alexandre Julliard 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

"Bill Medland" <medbi01(a)accpac.com> writes: > Ay, there's the rub. It isn't our function. It';s Microsoft's function. > Now was it Holub or McConnell that complains about functions having weird > behaviour on certain inputs. IMO Microsoft functions need less documentation than internal ones, since there is MSDN and other countless books about Windows. You can assume that people reading your code already know what the various APIs are supposed to do. > The biggest problem, I believe, is the functions that take flags. Bear in > mind that a single DWORD argument used for flags is equivalent to up to 32 > boolean arguments. Documenting the relationship between those is a pain > but it needs to be done if we expect compatibility. This is clearly something that is best documented with code, not with text. You may need pages of text to describe the flags behavior in English, while with code it's usually only a few lines, plus a few comments here and there. This doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing to also have the full description in English; but in a separate document, not in the code. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: Prevent excessive clipping in SysListView32
by Uwe Bonnes 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

>>>>> "Medland," == Medland, Bill <Bill.Medland(a)accpac.com> writes: Medland,> I am not very comfortable with this one but strange as it may Medland,> seem it solves the problem. I'd love to know why. Medland,> <<diff13.txt>> Bill Medland (medbi01(a)accpac.com) Prevents Medland,> excessive clipping in SysListView32. Medland,> Medland,>-static inline int perfect_graphics(void) Medland,>+static int perfect_graphics(void) Medland,> { Medland,> static int perfect = -1; Medland,> if (perfect == -1) Medland,> Some C-Expert is requested here, but I suspect that in the old function the variable "perfect" was created in every instantiation of the "perfect_graphics" inlined function. Could you perhaps try to declare the "perfect" outside the inlined function, like static int perfect = -1; static inline int perfect_graphics(void) Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

6 9

Re: Documenting functions
by Alexandre Julliard 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > I would say that I would rather have 100% of the effort a > particular developer *wants* to put in, rather than only > have his/her coding efforts. Absolutely; I'm not going to discourage anybody from writing doc if they feel like it. But I don't want anyone to feel somehow obliged to spend time on the doc if they'd rather be writing code, which I expect is the case with most developers... > However, I think that there should be a standard function > header, with a standard place to put notes and comments > in general about a function. I don't see a need to standardize anything. If you want to add a comment before a function just do it, there is no need for a standard format, plain text works just as well. > I have been trained, and I suspect that many of us have > been trained, to look at a function header for general > tips and tricks before diving into the code. I know > this is sacriledge to you, Alexandre, but there are some > of us who like to quickly look at a function, rather than > always reading the code to understand it completely. I think you misunderstand my position; I'm not opposed to having a comment at the start of the function explaining the general goal and the non-obvious things going on. But if you need more than a couple of paragraphs to do this, then either there are too many non-obvious things going on in your function, or you are wasting space explaining the obvious. I do strongly think that the goal should be to write code that doesn't require documentation in order to be understood. Of course adding a small amount of comments is a good idea; but when you start having more lines of documentation than lines of code, something is very wrong IMO. But this is mainly a matter of personal taste, and except in extreme cases I'm not going to reject code because it has too much (or not enough) documentation. It may happen that some of your beloved horizontal lines get lost during the cvs commit though ;-) -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: Documenting functions
by Jeremy White 02 Aug '01

02 Aug '01

[Resend due to exim crash; thanks Ove] >> I'd much rather have developers spend their time writing code. Making >> them duplicate the whole MSDN documentation would be a huge waste of >> their time. Our resources are not infinite, and it's much more useful >> to have 100% API coverage with no docs at all than 50% coverage and >> tons of docs. I think this is a dangerous attitude to take. I think that you cannot (and should not) attempt to force volunteer developers to add documentation to code. However, there are some few of us, who don't feel that the job is satisfactorily done until the documentation reflects important things that we've learned. I would say that I would rather have 100% of the effort a particular developer *wants* to put in, rather than only have his/her coding efforts. If I, like Bill, spend 24 hours ripping my hair out to learn some oddball things, I want a place to put those things. I want someone else (or an older version of me) to have a chance to not have to learn those things the hard way. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that we shouldn't try to replicate MSDN. I'm not even sure we should provide minimal documentation like parameter lists and return values. Further, I agree that where it makes sense, the best place for comments is inline with the relevant code. However, I think that there should be a standard function header, with a standard place to put notes and comments in general about a function. I have been trained, and I suspect that many of us have been trained, to look at a function header for general tips and tricks before diving into the code. I know this is sacriledge to you, Alexandre, but there are some of us who like to quickly look at a function, rather than always reading the code to understand it completely. <in joke> Finally, I think all the code would be dramatically improved, in fact, I bet we'd be at Wine 1.0 by now, if there were nice big horizontal separator lines everywhere. </in joke>

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