wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

84463 discussions

Printing documentation not built
by Ian Pilcher 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

It looks like the contents of documentation/printing.sgml are not being included in either the HTML or PostScript/PDF documentation. Anyone know how to fix this? -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher ian.pilcher(a)home.com ========================================================================

2 1

Re: Nasty Wine/kernel bug, anyone?
by gerard patel 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

At 12:14 PM 20/03/2001 -0600, you wrote: <snip> >I saw at least other user report on this (Steve Fox reported this >with Lotus Notes). > >My best guess is that this is a bug in the vfat driver, >but that's just a hunch. Where did this Notes bug turn up ? I never saw it on the news group, and it's not in your bug database. I'm curious because I would like to know how to reproduce it (I don't want not install Win98 and Outlook to test this :-/) Btw, since Borland released Kylix they talk of a glibc bug in dlopen : http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,26998,00.html do you know if it's a concern for Wine too ? Gerard

3 2

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Alexandre Julliard 25 Mar '01

25 Mar '01

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > Exactly. > > I think a compromise would be to create a wrapper script that modifies > the config file first to use appropriate settings and then calls the main > Wine binary. That's certainly a possibility. If you want a more temporary change you could also use regapi to change the config branch in the registry. Yet another possibility would be to add a "fast" mode to the debugger where it wouldn't load symbols or anything, simply setup the environment and launch an application. This could be the first step towards making it change debugmsg options during execution too. And all these solutions are potentially much more generic than the few existing options, since you could use the same mechanism to change just about anything in the configuration. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Guy L. Albertelli 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

-----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.com> To: andi(a)rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de <andi(a)rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> Cc: Wine Devel <wine-devel(a)winehq.com> Date: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:34 PM Subject: Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ... >There are tons of settings that can only be set through the config >file; why are the few remaining options so much different that you >need to set them on the command line? and how do you pass options >when an app is not launched from the command-line (like from another >Windows app, or from a desktop icon)? > As a developer, I find the ability to change -desktop/-managed, -debugmsg, -dll options on every run from the command line invaluable. If I had to edit config every time I wanted to change -debugmsg or -dll options, my progress would be at least cut in half. Guy

2 1

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Alexandre Julliard 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

Uwe Bonnes <bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes: > There are some options, like the --desktop/--managed option, that the user > may want to change quite often. Having to edit the config file is painfull > in that case. It will soon be possible to specify them per-application in the config file, so this should address the main reason for changing them often. If people really want more flexibility there are many ways of doing that; but hard-coding the options in kernel32 isn't one of them. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Alexandre Julliard 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > IMHO --desktop is *very* important. > > This will inevitably lead to tons of very confused questions, just like > with the sudden config file change. Yep, and there will still be other changes that will break everything and confuse users (think window management for instance); that the reason we are not at 1.0 yet. > And why don't you get rid of --managed then either ? It will happen, don't worry... > And how exactly does this break dll separation ? Because with these command-line options kernel32 must know about and export information specific to x11drv. Also there's a larger issue of mechanism vs. policy; if we want to be able to use the same set of Wine libraries for multiple usage (wine loader, Winelib apps, mp3 players loading Windows dlls, etc.) we need to move all policy decisions to the higher layers. We cannot have kernel32 enforce a specific command-line usage, since this doesn't apply in all cases. For another instance of the same issue, see the discussion about the deferred debug trace a couple of weeks ago: we need the Wine libraries to provide the *mechanism* to display tracing and other informations, but the *policy* of when and how to switch tracing on or off must be moved to higher layers (like the debugger) instead of hardcoding a magic key sequence in user32. > Can't we solve this in another way ? > (i.e. maybe keep cmdline options for Wine, but don't use them for Winelib > apps) > Getting rid of all command-line options is not really an option IMHO. > They are just way too useful. There are tons of settings that can only be set through the config file; why are the few remaining options so much different that you need to set them on the command line? and how do you pass options when an app is not launched from the command-line (like from another Windows app, or from a desktop icon)? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Alexandre Julliard 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

Andreas Mohr <a.mohr(a)mailto.de> writes: > Huh ?? > > Why would you consider --desktop to be "obsolete" ? It's not obsolete, it just has to be specified in the config file instead. All command-line options are going to disappear at some point, first because they are problematic for some Winelib apps, and second because they break dll separation. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

Re: wine/ dlls/x11drv/x11drv_main.c documentation/ ...
by Andreas Mohr 24 Mar '01

24 Mar '01

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 06:45:46PM -0500, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > ChangeSet ID: 98539114690732747875154 > CVSROOT: /opt/cvs-commit > Module name: wine > Changes by: julliard@wine2. 01/03/23 18:45:46 > > Modified files: > dlls/x11drv : x11drv_main.c > documentation : wine.man.in > documentation/samples: config > graphics/x11drv: xfont.c > include : options.h x11drv.h > misc : options.c > windows : dce.c win.c > windows/x11drv : event.c wnd.c > > Log message: > Cleanup properly on x11drv unloading. > Moved --synchronous option into config file. > Removed --desktop, --display and --language command-line options. Huh ?? Why would you consider --desktop to be "obsolete" ? Andreas Mohr

1 0

Re: Handling overlapping buffers in wcstombs_sbcs
by Alexandre Julliard 23 Mar '01

23 Mar '01

Fran=E7ois Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > Actually the documentation specifies that WideCharToMultiByte (cal= led > by ConvertVersionInfo32To16) fails if the source and destination > pointers are the same. But it does not specify what happens if the > buffers merelyt overlap. And of course in the ConvertVersionInfo32To16 > case there's a 2 byte difference between them! Then ConvertVersionInfo32To16 is broken; WideCharToMultiByte does not support overlapping buffers. > I'm not really convinced by the loop unrolling but I tried to keep= it > anyway. I just modified it a bit. If someone's interested in doing > actual performance tests, wants to look at the assembly or knows how > manual loop unrolling must be done, go ahead. You know, I did exactly that (looking at the assembly and running performance tests) when implementing it; it may be possible to improve it more by optimizing CPU pipelines usage, which is something I don't know too much about. But I strongly doubt you can improve it by only looking at the C source... --=20 Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: [PATCH] Add Callback for wavemapper -> widOpen
by Alexandre Julliard 22 Mar '01

22 Mar '01

"James Hatheway" <james(a)macadamian.com> writes: > Changelog: > James Hatheway - james(a)macadamian.com > widOpen in the wavemapper should use a callback. It doesn't seem right to use winmm internal structures here. Are you sure this is the right way to do it? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

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