wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

12 participants
84441 discussions

Re: Misc / Unicode
by Huw D M Davies 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 08:51:45PM -0800, Francois Gouget wrote: > Index: include/richedit.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/cvs/wine/wine/include/richedit.h,v > retrieving revision 1.4 > diff -u -r1.4 richedit.h > --- include/richedit.h 2001/01/22 19:25:27 1.4 > +++ include/richedit.h 2001/01/29 11:01:27 > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ > #define cchTextLimitDefault 0x7fff > > #define RICHEDIT_CLASS20A "RichEdit20A" > -#define RICHEDIT_CLASS20W L"RichEdit20W" > +static const WCHAR RICHEDIT_CLASS20W[] = { 'R','i','c','h','E','d','i','t','2','0','W' }; Doesn't this want a trailing 0 ? Huw. -- Dr. Huw D M Davies | Clarendon Laboratory h.davies1(a)physics.ox.ac.uk | Parks Road Tel: +44 1865 272390 | Oxford OX1 3PU Fax: +44 1865 272400 | UK

1 0

Re: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> "Paul E. Merrell" wrote: > > > "Hypothetically, similar efforts taken by others to > > reverse-engineer Microsoft Windows could be deemed justifiable > > if the aim of those efforts were to make other companies' > > programs, designed for Windows, run on an operating system > > other than Windows. This assumes that the 9th Circuit ruling > > holds up." [snip] > As Paul mentioned in the quote he selected, the key item > involves moving an application to a > different platform. Application "portability" may legally no > longer require "porting"! It may > instead allow for "OS Compatibility Layers" to be written > instead. This may also drive a needed > wedge into the notion of migrating applications into the OS, > a strategy MS has evolved into a fine > art. One thing that is important to note is unless you do an internal redesign of your application "porting" will involve some sort of compabillity layer. The difference is whether you have it distributed as part of your application or whether you distribute it seperately. In fact Wine can, in some meaning be both, depending whether you use Wine to run the PE executable or whether you dynamically link with Winelib or whether you statically link with Winelib. In short if you try do make a legal difference between different kind of porting you will get all sorts of logical inconsistancies. > This affects far more than Wine: One project that comes to > mind is MAME (games). There are many > more seemingly similar projects that are NOT affected, such > as MOL(Mac-on-Linux), Win4Lin, Plex86, > VmWare and probably several others that actually run the > target OS, not emulate (clone) it. > > An extreme interpretation of this decision could be as > follows: If I need a reason to legally > clone a new feature in some market-leading desktop OS, all I > need to do is find an app (any app) > that uses that feature, then declare my intent to make that > app run under some other (any other) > OS. It does not matter if the feature being emulated is > "documented" or not. Taken further, it One thing to note is that "documented", as I guess you suggest by quoteing it, is a very vague term. If you are intelligent and knowledgable enough you can simply look at the binary and "read" what it does as accurately, and in some meaning even more so, as a less knowledgable person could read any existing documentation that might even be incorrect. In short trying to make legal differance of what is reverse enginering or what is not has severe problems. > may even be possible to dispose of the specific API used to > implement the feature, and use a > different one instead. > > Eventually (assuming this decision survives), the courts will > see that ALL such forms of reverse > engineering should be legal WITHOUT the necessity of an app to port. Probably, any alternative will have either severe logical problems or will be complete arbitrary, I think. > However, this notion still needs to be more fully explored > via additional cases before its full > scope can be determined. Presently, the scope appears to be > very restricted: The article points > out that the DeCSS decision would probably not be affected in > any way. In the current > environment, this is probably true. But what if you can > convince the courts to view DVD "content" > as a "program"! While this may seem obviously true to > technical folks, especially those who > create multimedia apps and content for a living, it may take > many visits to court to properly > communicate this understanding to the legal system. I think from the legal defintion of a program in US Law it should be obvious for a court as well. I don't remember exactly what it said but a remember making that reflection when I read it. > Anyway, since most of the available content security systems > ARE software, and MS has already > migrated theirs into the latest versions of Windows, this > entire issue already has the potential > to snowball completely out of the control of OS and content > companies, and possibly even Congress > itself. > > With the major media companies trying to tie software > protection and content protection together > under copyright law (via laws such as DMCA and UCITA), this > may be just the wedge needed to pry > them back apart. Note that the issues of the legallity of Wine and DeCSS is connected in an abstract sense. Among them the Amicus Brief from the 65(!) Law Professors in the DeCSS argued that forbidding DeCSS, regardless of whether it violates the first amendment or not, lies outside the scope of the power of the Congress because of the 10th amendment. Following the same reasoning then _all_ reverse engineering obviously does so as well. > One can only hope, and patiently wait for the court decisions... Personally I don't worry that much. First of all I live in Europe secondly any kind of regulation of these kind of issues will IMHO be either logically inconsistant or completely arbitrary. Neither of the cases are likely to survive in the long run for several reason among them. 1. Constitional/"Human rights" reasons 2. Legal enforcement is close to impossible 3. It is unlikely to serve the public good

2 1

Strange window message / queue behaviour
by Marcus Meissner 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Hi, I have an application that handles several text edit controls. At one point it flips from the first to the second (after you have entered the fourth character). This is done by a function, which does (simplified) this: { DWORD startsel,endsel; PostMessageA(hwnd1,EM_GETSEL,&startsel,&endsel); SetFocus(hwnd2); PostMessageA(hwnd2,EM_SETSEL,0,0); /* ... */ CallWindowProcA(hwnd,....); return; } According to the +relay,+edit trace the EM_GETSEL is executed way _AFTER_ the return from the function, so, since it uses stackvalues, it then smashes the stack somewhere else. My suspicion is that SetFocus() in Windows drains all posted messages by doing something like: while (PeekMessage()) { TranslateMessage(); DispatchMessage(); } but I do not really know. Does anybody have more knowledge of this? The respective trace is here, starting with the posting of the message with the pointers into the stack: Ciao, Marcus Call user32.455: PostMessageA(000006b4,000000b0,40599904,40599908) ret=0041a99b fs=008f Ret user32.455: PostMessageA() retval=00000001 ret=0041a99b fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041a9ab fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041a9ab fs=008f Call user32.527: SetFocus(0000074c) ret=0041a9b2 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFOCU S,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,00000008,0000074c,00000000) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFO CUS,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=020007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFO CUS,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_KILLFOCU S,wp=0000074c,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOCUS ,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041aa7c fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041aa7c fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,0000074c,00000007,000006b4,00000000) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOC US,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=010007d7,lp=0000074c) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOC US,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=0000074c,msg=WM_SETFOCUS ,wp=000006b4,lp=00000000) retval=00000000 Ret user32.527: SetFocus() retval=000006b4 ret=0041a9b2 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d7) ret=0041a9cc fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=0000074c ret=0041a9cc fs=008f Call user32.455: PostMessageA(0000074c,000000b1,00000000,00000000) ret=0041a9d3 fs=008f Ret user32.455: PostMessageA() retval=00000001 ret=0041a9d3 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,00000102,00000048,00230001) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,w p=00000048,lp=00230001) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=040007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41ae53,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAND, wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x40702990,hwnd=000002bc,msg=WM_COMMAN D,wp=030007d6,lp=000006b4) retval=00000000 trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,w p=00000048,lp=00230001) retval=00000000 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00000000 ret=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=WM_CHAR,wp= 00000068,lp=00230001) retval=00000000 After this it directly returns from the function. trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x41a73f,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL32 ,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007da) ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000004e4 ret=0041aa40 fs=008f Call user32.254: GetDlgItem(000002bc,000007d6) ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Ret user32.254: GetDlgItem() retval=000006b4 ret=0041aa5e fs=008f Call user32.21: CallWindowProcA(41060311,000006b4,000000b0,40599904,40599908) r et=0041aa26 fs=008f trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL 32,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) trace:relay:WINPROC_CallWndProc (wndproc=0x406dcf00,hwnd=000006b4,msg=EM_GETSEL 32,wp=40599904,lp=40599908) retval=00040004 Ret user32.21: CallWindowProcA() retval=00040004 ret=00000004 fs=008f ... but still uses its stack values here. faulted at EIP=0x00000004, CR2=0x00000004, EAX 0x00040004 EBX 0x407936fc, ECX 0x00000001, EBP 0x40599950 EDI 0x40599904, ESP 0x002b:0x40599908 FS 0x008f, pid 1772

3 2

Re: Strange window message / queue behaviour
by gerard patel 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

At 12:00 AM 6/2/01 +0100, you wrote: >last paragraph), there's also the possibility that Windows recognizes that >it's a message known to contain pointers, and so just drops the message, >so that EM_GETSEL is simply never dispatched? Indeed under NT4 such a call is discarded by Windows (returns 0, error is set to ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER) Gerard

1 0

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 02:38 PM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >Well, examining how Windows does it can be done, >but I don't think it's too useful, as I think that the current approach >with that fix should work fine. > >> Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from >> another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the >> remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO. >I don't think the "other thread" is important. >What is important is the fact that if we don't get frequent messages, >the dialog will stay open without that fix. Well, if the current thread is active, it's in the dialog code I guess since DialogBox is, well, modal. And if it's in the dialog code, the code run should be in dialog box procedure, so it should be in a message handling. So any EndDialog is followed by a return to the dialog loop. I am not quite sure of that, though. >Windows definitely does NOT do it this way, of course >(well, I'd be surprised if it actually did ;-). >This is just a (crude, if you want) hack to make it work. >And I figured sending WM_NULL shouldn't hurt. >I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite the whole dialog handling >(e.g. to do it like Windows), but I don't think it matters at all >at the moment. >There are much more important things to do. Possibly, but it's important at least to add a comment saying that it is a hack.... Correct documentation can wait you think ? Wine is full of strange code that nobody knows why it's here already :-/ Gerard

2 1

Corel Draw for Linux
by Uwe Bonnes 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Hallo, somebidy fronm the local Linux User Group desperatlly looks for Corel Draw for Linux in Germany. He wasn't able to find anything? Looking araound only brings misleading Corel statements. Does anybody know what is the status of Corel Draw for Linux? Any source in Germany? Bye Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

2 1

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 10:37 AM 5/2/01 -0600, you wrote: >> I can't see this WM_NULL with Winsight. Maybe it's a bug in >> Winsight :-/, but are you sure it's not some framework that is >> sending it ? >Hmm, what are you talking about ? > >And I don't quite understand what you're investigating here... ;-) *I* don't understand what it is supposed to fix. Using Winsight was a rather brainless attempt to see what is happening under Windows. Now I think I see : this can only be useful if EndDialog is called from another thread, right ? If yes, you really *should* mention this in the remark before the code. No need to be mysterious IMHO. Anyway, I tested your patch with a thread I launched before the DialogBox call; after 15" of sleep the thread is calling EndDialog. To add fun I added a WM_NULL handler in the dialog procedure to display a MessageBox; under Windows the MessageBox does not fire, under Wine with your patch, it does (test app available) So probably Windows does not do it this way (or the WM_NULL message is filtered). It probably does not matter much, granted. Gerard

2 1

wine-patches working?
by Ian Pilcher 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Is anyone else not getting stuff that's sent to wine-patches? -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher pilcher(a)concentric.net ========================================================================

3 2

Re: annoying EndDialog "feature"
by gerard patel 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

At 08:52 PM 30/1/01 +0100, you (Andreas Mohr) wrote: <snip> >Just send WM_NULL to unblock the dialog's message loop after setting DF_END. I can't see this WM_NULL with Winsight. Maybe it's a bug in Winsight :-/, but are you sure it's not some framework that is sending it ? Gerard

2 1

recording sound?
by Thomas Flynn 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Has anyone tried recording sound? It works fine under Linux (with grecord for example), but I have I windows app that does a pretty simple record and playback. Audio playing is fine, but recording fails (I get a stupid meaningless windows dialog that says recording failed and that the error code was -8602 or something). I was just wondering if perhaps recording hasn't been touched yet, or whether I had run across a special case that isn't handled yet. thanks, tom -- "Mongooses are famous for their snake-fighting ability, and are almost always victorious because of their speed, agility, and timing and also because of their thick coat."

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