SOC Direct3D - Implement missing D3D9_xx DLLs?

[Jeroen Janssen]

Hi,

I was looking at the Wine SOC wiki ( http://wiki.winehq.org/SummerOfCode ) and
noticed an entry on "Direct3D - Implement missing D3D9_xx DLLs".

As far as I can see there are already lots of D3D9_xx dlls in the tree that seem
to forward stuf correctly.

Can someone confirm this to be already finished (and then remove this item from
the wiki?) If it isn't finished yet, what IS missing then?

D3D10_xx DLLs seem to be currently missing (I know we don't have any d3d 10
implementation yet in wine) and it probably isn't a SOC project, but would
completely stubbed D3D10_xx DLLs (patches) be accepted if I submit them to the
patch mailinglist or not?

Best regards,

Jeroen Janssen

[H. Verbeet]

On 01/04/2008, Jeroen Janssen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the Wine SOC wiki ( http://wiki.winehq.org/SummerOfCode ) and
>  noticed an entry on "Direct3D - Implement missing D3D9_xx DLLs".
>
> As far as I can see there are already lots of D3D9_xx dlls in the tree that seem
>  to forward stuf correctly.
>
> Can someone confirm this to be already finished (and then remove this item from
>  the wiki?) If it isn't finished yet, what IS missing then?

It isn't so much that the dlls themselves are missing, but rather that
a lot of the functions they're supposed to implement are still
unimplemented.
> D3D10_xx DLLs seem to be currently missing (I know we don't have any d3d 10
>  implementation yet in wine) and it probably isn't a SOC project, but would
>  completely stubbed D3D10_xx DLLs (patches) be accepted if I submit them to the
>  patch mailinglist or not?

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to have stubbed d3d10x dlls
without at least a partial d3d10 implementation.

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Dienstag, 1. April 2008 15:06:37 schrieb H. Verbeet:
> Personally, I don't think it makes sense to have stubbed d3d10x dlls
> without at least a partial d3d10 implementation.

Yes, I agree. It would make more sense to take the unfinished stub from 
Andras' D3D10 project last year, finish it and write tests. For starting a 
D3D10 implementation we need some tests regarding pixel formats, the shader 
bytecode format and how the new buffer resource model works exactly.

[Jeroen Janssen]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Stefan Dösinger  wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 1. April 2008 15:06:37 schrieb H. Verbeet:
> > Personally, I don't think it makes sense to have stubbed d3d10x dlls
> > without at least a partial d3d10 implementation.
>
> Yes, I agree. It would make more sense to take the unfinished stub from
> Andras' D3D10 project last year, finish it and write tests. For starting a
> D3D10 implementation we need some tests regarding pixel formats, the shader
> bytecode format and how the new buffer resource model works exactly.

Would it be worth mentioning this on the wine SOC 2008 page?

Also, is there some info on what is left to do?
( I found the code Andras wrote at
http://code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code-2007-wine/downloads/list
)

Best regards,

Jeroen Janssen

p.s. I'm not a student, but just interested in something that I could
work on, so if someone else claims this for the SOC, that's ok with
me.

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Dienstag, 1. April 2008 16:01:34 schrieb Jeroen Janssen:
> Would it be worth mentioning this on the wine SOC 2008 page?
>
> Also, is there some info on what is left to do?
> ( I found the code Andras wrote at
> http://code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code-2007-wine/downloads/list
> )

Ya, might be worth mentioning. But since the last year's soc project didn't 
get too far I am a bit afraid of "infrastructure" projects. I think it is 
easier for a student to add something new if there is an existing framework 
where he can hook in. For one part because the coding is easier, and also 
from a motivation standpoint because you see early results.

Of course if someone steps up and says he wants to go and write D3D10 tests I 
am willing to mentor such a problem.

[Jeroen Janssen]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:06 PM, H. Verbeet  wrote:
> > As far as I can see there are already lots of D3D9_xx dlls in the tree that seem
> >  to forward stuf correctly.
> >
> > Can someone confirm this to be already finished (and then remove this item from
> >  the wiki?) If it isn't finished yet, what IS missing then?
>
> It isn't so much that the dlls themselves are missing, but rather that
> a lot of the functions they're supposed to implement are still
> unimplemented.

Ok, then the SOC text on the wiki for this item is slightly
"misleading" / outdated.