wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

6 participants
84484 discussions

Re: Question about network stuff
by Bobby Bingham 12 Aug '01

12 Aug '01

I'm not sure of the answer to your problem (could you be a little more specific than "it basically told me it couldn't access the network.) This isn't the right list for this question. This list is for patches that have been submitted to WINE. You might try the wine-users mailing list, or, if you're really daring, the wine-devel list if no one on wine-users knows Bobby Bingham Microsoft Windows: Made for the internet The Internet: Made for UNIX On Sunday 12 August 2001 02:02 am, you wrote: > Hi there > > (am I even on the right list??) > > I've been trying to get some Internet playable games to work with Wine, > namely everquest. > > I started out by making the mistake of running wine from my home dir (like > wine /win/d/everquest/everquest.exe) and having it download the whole game > from the 'net to my home dir.. I stopped that in a hurry :-) > > When I moved to /win/d/everquest, and tried to do wine ./everquest, it > basically told me it couldn't access the network. > > Why? How do I fix this? > > Thanks a ton, > > Tim

1 0

Re: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Alexandre Julliard 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > So to the details of the marshalling API (the unmarshalling API can wait). > 1. Where should we put them? Suggestion: include/wine/messsage.h No, it should be private to the dlls that really need it. We shouldn't add a global Wine-specific interface, we already have too many of that. And please don't go around converting all SendMessage calls to some marshalling API; this should be reserved to the cases where there is really a need. This is why I suggested to add the inline function in the C file directly: if there is a file where there are a lot of WM_COMMANDs with ugly casts, you can add an inline function there. But if there is only one or two, or calls that don't need ugly typecasts (most of them don't), then you definitely don't want to use the inline, just do a normal SendMessage. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Patrik Stridvall 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > We can just do it like: > > #ifdef __GNUC__ > > extern inline void FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(HWND hwnd, int id, > HWND hwndCtl, UINT > > codeNotify, WNDPROC fn) > > { > > fn(hwnd, WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM(id, codeNotify), (LPARAM) hwnd); > > } > > #else > > #define FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(hwnd, id, hwndCtl, codeNotify, fn) \ > > (void)(fn)((hwnd), WM_COMMAND, > > MAKEWPARAM((UINT)(id),(UINT)(codeNotify)), (LPARAM)(HWND)(hwndCtl)) > > #endif > > > > if you wish. And if you are worried about preprocessor abusing > > Winelib application we could do #if defined(__GNUC__) && > defined(__WINE__) > > instead or use some kind of macro wrap around protection of the > > kind that I proposed that you didn't like. > > If you want to wrap WM_COMMAND, do something like: > > inline void send_wm_command(HWND hwnd, int id, HWND hwndCtl, > UINT codeNotify) > { > SendMessageW(hwnd, WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM(id, codeNotify), > (LPARAM)hwndCtl); > } > > This is a normal function, doing a normal SendMessage call, and it's > perfectly all right with me. And if you want to do a PostMessage then > write a separate post_wm_command() function. Of course this is not a > standard Windows API so you cannot put it in the standard header > files; but you can have it in some dll private headers, or even > directly in the C files that need it. Ironically that was approximately my original idea. But I didn't think you would accept it so I didn't bother investigating further. Then I realized that the windowsx.h macros did what I wanted so choosed that solution instead. But sure we have a marshalling/unmarshalling API of our own, if that is what you want. Unless of course you prefer the hack below for PostMessage (not likely :-). So to the details of the marshalling API (the unmarshalling API can wait). 1. Where should we put them? Suggestion: include/wine/messsage.h 2. What should we call them? Suggestion: {POST,SEND}_WM_COMMAND etc. We really should capitalize the message name because of people doing "grep WM_COMMAND". And not capitalizing the POST/SEND would look silly if the suffix is capitalized. Sure they look like macros but then they could easily be made to be as an alterative implemention like #define SEND_WM_COMMAND(hwnd, id, hwndCtl, codeNotify) \ FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(hwnd, id, hwndCtl, codeNotify, SendMessage) 3. Do you want the macro wrapper (against the FORWARD API) above for the non GNU C case? 4. Should have have {POST,SEND}_WM_COMMAND{A,W} for calling {Post,Send}Message{A,W} or should we always the W variant like in your example above. > > To sum it up: > > 1. The FORWARD_* API and the HANDLE_* API really are normal > functions not > > macros (preprocessor abuses). The fact Micrsoft > implemented them as macros > > because of lack of compiler support for inline functions > or because of > > incompetence is irrelevant, we can do it right in a 100% > compatible way. > > No we can't; SendMessage and PostMessage don't have the same > prototype, so the preprocessor abuse is necessary to avoid > warnings. It seems you are right. PostMessage returns BOOL. Anyway there are not so many PostMessage calls that can be converted. $ find . -name \*.c | xargs grep PostMessage | grep WM_ | wc -l 35 The type compatible ones on the other hand are $ find . -name \*.c | xargs egrep 'Def.*Proc' | grep WM_ | wc -l 33 $ find . -name \*.c | xargs grep SendMessage | grep WM_ | wc -l 420 The Def.*Proc ones doesn't seem of closer examination to require marshalling of parameters so let skip them. Total 420 compared to 35. So we either decide not to use the the FORWARD_ API for such cases or we do: BOOL bResult = (BOOL) FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(/* ... */, (WNDPROC) PostMessageW); The use above is type correct regardless of whether FORWARD_WM_COMMAND is a macro or a inline function. A little ugly yes, but then it isn't nessary to convert the few PostMessage that exists to the FORWARD_* API at all.

1 0

Re: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Alexandre Julliard 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > We can just do it like: > #ifdef __GNUC__ > extern inline void FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(HWND hwnd, int id, HWND hwndCtl, UINT > codeNotify, WNDPROC fn) > { > fn(hwnd, WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM(id, codeNotify), (LPARAM) hwnd); > } > #else > #define FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(hwnd, id, hwndCtl, codeNotify, fn) \ > (void)(fn)((hwnd), WM_COMMAND, > MAKEWPARAM((UINT)(id),(UINT)(codeNotify)), (LPARAM)(HWND)(hwndCtl)) > #endif > > if you wish. And if you are worried about preprocessor abusing > Winelib application we could do #if defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__WINE__) > instead or use some kind of macro wrap around protection of the > kind that I proposed that you didn't like. If you want to wrap WM_COMMAND, do something like: inline void send_wm_command(HWND hwnd, int id, HWND hwndCtl, UINT codeNotify) { SendMessageW(hwnd, WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM(id, codeNotify), (LPARAM)hwndCtl); } This is a normal function, doing a normal SendMessage call, and it's perfectly all right with me. And if you want to do a PostMessage then write a separate post_wm_command() function. Of course this is not a standard Windows API so you cannot put it in the standard header files; but you can have it in some dll private headers, or even directly in the C files that need it. > To sum it up: > 1. The FORWARD_* API and the HANDLE_* API really are normal functions not > macros (preprocessor abuses). The fact Micrsoft implemented them as macros > because of lack of compiler support for inline functions or because of > incompetence is irrelevant, we can do it right in a 100% compatible way. No we can't; SendMessage and PostMessage don't have the same prototype, so the preprocessor abuse is necessary to avoid warnings. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Patrik Stridvall 11 Aug '01

11 Aug '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Microsoft introduced the windowsx.h macros for a reason and > > while without inline functions the current implementation > > of the FORWARD_* macros was the best they could do, it > > was at least better than nothing since it at least handled > > the parameter marshalling even if it wasn't 100% type safe. > > I wouldn't rely on Microsoft choices to judge an API design ;-) Point taken. :-) However not everything Microsoft does is bad, eventhough I admit that being sceptical is a good start. > > Another things to think about: > > What is the difference between calling {Set,Get}WindowText > > functions and calling the FORWARD_WM_{GET,SET}TEXT macros? > > It's a matter of taste. Calling a normal function is perfectly all > right; But they are normal functions. It is just not that apparent that they really are. Whether this is by design or by accident I leave unsaid. :-) Anyway, see below. > but I find that using a macro (or worse an inline function > masquerading as a macro) and having to pass it the name of the > function you want to call is ugly and offensive. If you want to call > SendMessage, then call SendMessage, don't hide it inside a macro. It is not hidden in the macro. Which function to call is provided as the last parameter of the macro. > Just because you can do all kinds of abuses of the preprocessor in C > doesn't mean you should. Well actually, the so called abuses of the preprocesor was for 100% compabillity with Winelib applications, if they abuse the fact that FORWARD_* might not always be macros (like doing undef on them). It is possible do it cleaner that the crude example I provide as well. Anyway, with the exception of preprocessor abusing application, which Wine easily can be made not to be. We can just do it like: #ifdef __GNUC__ extern inline void FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(HWND hwnd, int id, HWND hwndCtl, UINT codeNotify, WNDPROC fn) { fn(hwnd, WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM(id, codeNotify), (LPARAM) hwnd); } #else #define FORWARD_WM_COMMAND(hwnd, id, hwndCtl, codeNotify, fn) \ (void)(fn)((hwnd), WM_COMMAND, MAKEWPARAM((UINT)(id),(UINT)(codeNotify)), (LPARAM)(HWND)(hwndCtl)) #endif if you wish. And if you are worried about preprocessor abusing Winelib application we could do #if defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__WINE__) instead or use some kind of macro wrap around protection of the kind that I proposed that you didn't like. Note that the above inline function "abuses" that fact that C autocasts between functions and pointer to functions, but then it standard well documented and often used "abuse", so calling it an abuse isn't really fair (not that you did since my example contained an unnessary &)). To sum it up: 1. The FORWARD_* API and the HANDLE_* API really are normal functions not macros (preprocessor abuses). The fact Micrsoft implemented them as macros because of lack of compiler support for inline functions or because of incompetence is irrelevant, we can do it right in a 100% compatible way. 2. The FORWARD_* API provides marshalling of parameters and the HANDLE_* API provides unmarshalling of parameters. 3. The FORWARD_* API provides type safe sending of parameters and the HANDLE_* API provides type safe recieving of parameters. Note that the fact that marshalling and unmarshalling of parameters are hidden makes that code much more readable and yes, I say it again, the FORWARD_* API and HANDLE_* API really are normal functions, there is no hidden traps for the unwary user. Just a nice wrapper for type safe marshalling and unmarshalling of parameters. PS. We could easily rewrite the HANDLE_* API as inline functions as well, I don't think it gives us anything though. They are good as they are AFAICS. But if you don't like macros, sure I can rewrite them as inline functions well. It just a lot of work to no gain AFAICS. It wouldn't hurt either though.

1 0

Re: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Alexandre Julliard 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > Microsoft introduced the windowsx.h macros for a reason and > while without inline functions the current implementation > of the FORWARD_* macros was the best they could do, it > was at least better than nothing since it at least handled > the parameter marshalling even if it wasn't 100% type safe. I wouldn't rely on Microsoft choices to judge an API design ;-) > Another things to think about: > What is the difference between calling {Set,Get}WindowText > functions and calling the FORWARD_WM_{GET,SET}TEXT macros? It's a matter of taste. Calling a normal function is perfectly all right; but I find that using a macro (or worse an inline function masquerading as a macro) and having to pass it the name of the function you want to call is ugly and offensive. If you want to call SendMessage, then call SendMessage, don't hide it inside a macro. Just because you can do all kinds of abuses of the preprocessor in C doesn't mean you should. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Patrik Stridvall 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > This will give us all the advantages of the "macros" > without any typecasts > > that could > > possibly hide a type error. > > > > What do you say? > > I don't like it. I think windowsx.h should not be used at all in Wine; > it only obfuscates things by making it harder to see what's really > going on. Obfuscates what? The only thing the "macros" do is that it hides the way the parameters are marshalled. That is totally unintresting for almost all Wine developers. Like the Win16/Win32 thunking code you don't have to know how it works, you just call the appropriate functions. The same with the stdcall calling convention most API functions use. You add WINAPI before the function and you don't care how it works. It is the somebody else problem and you trust that they know what they are doing. So please explain what the use of FORWARD_* macros obfuscates for I really can't see it. AFAICS it is much better to use the FORWARD_ macros (especially with my hack to make them truely type safe). They are just a function like any other. Why look up how the parameters are marshalled when you can call a function FORWARD_* that not only does it, but does it in a type safe way. If you call the function with the wrong parameters you are very likely to get type errors. If you marshall the parameters in the wrong way it is almost 100% certain that the compiler will say nothing. Microsoft introduced the windowsx.h macros for a reason and while without inline functions the current implementation of the FORWARD_* macros was the best they could do, it was at least better than nothing since it at least handled the parameter marshalling even if it wasn't 100% type safe. Another things to think about: What is the difference between calling {Set,Get}WindowText functions and calling the FORWARD_WM_{GET,SET}TEXT macros? Answer: No difference at all except that you can easily do a PostMessage instead of a SendMessage if you wish. Of course I'm not suggesting that we should call the FORWARD_WM_{GET,SET}TEXT instead of {Set,Get}WindowText, but in most cases no appropriate functions exists and FORWARD_* macros will at least do the marshalling of parameters and if we implement my version of them also type safe. > Besides, the FORWARD_* macros are not really meant to be > used to send messages, they are meant to help receiving messages, so I > don't think we should abuse them that way. No, that is what the HANDLE_* macros are for. The FORWARD_* macros are for sending (or forwarding) messages. Speaking of which the HANDLE_* macros could find uses in COMCTL32 and other similar DLL:s to provide a type safe receiving of messages. I don't even think we will have to do as a proposed for the FORWARD_* to make them truely type safe.

1 0

Re: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Alexandre Julliard 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > This will give us all the advantages of the "macros" without any typecasts > that could > possibly hide a type error. > > What do you say? I don't like it. I think windowsx.h should not be used at all in Wine; it only obfuscates things by making it harder to see what's really going on. Besides, the FORWARD_* macros are not really meant to be used to send messages, they are meant to help receiving messages, so I don't think we should abuse them that way. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

RE: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT w arni ngs?
by Patrik Stridvall 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > So the question is: > > Should we use the FORWARD_WM_* macros to avoid typecasts > > (or rather avoid visable typecast) or should we not? > > If not how should we fix the problems? > > I think it's better to avoid that. Hiding the typecasts in the macros > doesn't really make things cleaner IMO. This is a case where the API > design forces us to use a typecast, so we might as well make it > explicit. True, but be aware of the macros often use a double type cast like (LPARAM)(HWND). I'm not sure this is really helpful, since I guess it will reveal but a few type error if any at all. Also note that the macros also takes care of MAKEWPARAM and MAKELPARAM stuff so it makes the code a little more readable. Anyway, never mind. We could be a little more clever than the macros permit that if we like. See below. > Note that for the specific case of WM_GET/SETTEXT, it would be much > better to use Get/SetWindowText which will do correct type checks. True. They was just an example. They are a few more with similar problems but they are few (less than 10 IIRC). I guess we can worry about them later. > But > for messages that don't have a corresponding function we have to do > the typecast. As the macros work now, yes. But we could extend the "macros" to be a little more clever than that. Take for example one of the more advanced macros #define FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(hwnd, fDoubleClick, x, y, keyFlags, fn) \ (void)(fn)((hwnd), (fDoubleClick) ? WM_LBUTTONDBLCLK : WM_LBUTTONDOWN, (WPARAM)(UINT)(keyFlags), MAKELPARAM((x), (y))) We could quite easily write it like: #define _FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(hwnd, fDoubleClick, x, y, keyFlags, fn) \ (void)(fn)((hwnd), (fDoubleClick) ? WM_LBUTTONDBLCLK : WM_LBUTTONDOWN, (WPARAM)(UINT)(keyFlags), MAKELPARAM((x), (y))) #if defined(__WINE__) && defined(__GNUC__) extern inline void _WINE_FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(HWND hwnd, BOOL fDoubleClick, int x, int y, UINT keyFlags, WNDPROC *fn) { /* return */ _FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(hwnd, fDoubleClick, x, y, keyFlags, *fn); } #define FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(hwnd, fDoubleClick, x, y, keyFlags, fn) \ _WINE_FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN((hwnd), (fDoubleClick), (x), (y), (keyFlags), &(fn)) #else #define FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN(hwnd, fDoubleClick, x, y, keyFlags, fn) \ _FORWARD_WM_LBUTTONDOWN((hwnd), (fDoubleClick), (x), (y), (keyFlags), (fn)) #endif Or something like that. I'm not even sure the __WINE__ is needed. I not sure that any Winelib application could possibly misuse the macros in such a way that the result is not semantically the same (type warnings/errors excluded of course). Note that it is quite easy to write script that automatically does this to avoid subtle bugs especially since the correct (almost) prototype is already before each macro. Like in the case above: /* void Cls_OnLButtonDown(HWND hwnd, BOOL fDoubleClick, int x, int y, UINT keyFlags) */ This will give us all the advantages of the "macros" without any typecasts that could possibly hide a type error. What do you say? Note that we don't have to implement the solution above right now either. Using the macros as they are will not gain us very much (except possible a cleaner looking code), true. However when we implement the type safe "macros" as described above we will immediately find any and all type errors concerning such code. Anway fixing windowsx.h to look like above will not be very difficult either so there is no real reason to wait is it? PS. As hinted above this will also work with most (all?) Winelib applications that happends to use the windowsx.h macros and enable the finding of subtle type errors in such applications.

1 0

Re: RFC: Should we use the macros in windowsx.h to fix -DSTRICT warni ngs?
by Alexandre Julliard 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > So the question is: > Should we use the FORWARD_WM_* macros to avoid typecasts > (or rather avoid visable typecast) or should we not? > If not how should we fix the problems? I think it's better to avoid that. Hiding the typecasts in the macros doesn't really make things cleaner IMO. This is a case where the API design forces us to use a typecast, so we might as well make it explicit. Note that for the specific case of WM_GET/SETTEXT, it would be much better to use Get/SetWindowText which will do correct type checks. But for messages that don't have a corresponding function we have to do the typecast. -- 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