Hiya, I was trying to confirm an old bug still existed and the bug #440 has a tar file with an exe in it which apparently used to run under wine and fails with some problems later on. Nowdays, it fails dismally when you try to launch it.
Disclaimer#1 - I haven't tried a regression test but I have looked through the code at the point of the failure all the way back to before winedos existed (pre this problem report) and cant see how it ever worked. If anyone has a working 2002 version of wine and could try it, I'd appreciate it!
Basically we look at the header, and see a # pages of 1, and a count of bytes in the last page of 107, and end up loading something like 38 bytes of the exe. The DOS exe starts with JMP 0x88, so a trap occurs
Looking under windows, ntvdm does a load for the header, then a load for 464 bytes from the position where the code starts - For the life of me I cant see how that calculation occurs and where our code is wrong.
I know its an extremely trivial problem for an ancient thing that no one will probably ever want running under wine, but it really bugs me - Does anyone have any idea why our calculation is wrong?
Jason
"Ann and Jason Edmeades" us@the-edmeades.demon.co.uk wrote:
Hiya, I was trying to confirm an old bug still existed and the bug #440 has a tar file with an exe in it which apparently used to run under wine and fails with some problems later on. Nowdays, it fails dismally when you try to launch it.
What exactly is the bug number and where that DOS .exe could be found? The bug #440 appears to be related to a completely different problem.
Hiya,
I was trying to confirm an old bug still existed and the bug #440 has a tar file with an exe in it which apparently used to run under wine and fails with some problems later on. Nowdays, it fails dismally when you
try
to launch it.
What exactly is the bug number and where that DOS .exe could be found? The bug #440 appears to be related to a completely different problem.
Yes - the bug describes a different problem, but was raised 2+ years ago. Basically it now fails in a different way, and I started looking into why because it dies so early on - Literally it doesn't load the exe properly at all whereas it works on windows.
The exe is in the attached tar on the bug, and although dos support isn't high on wines list, its really bugging me as to why our calculation is wrong.
Jason
-
Ann and Jason Edmeades -
Dmitry Timoshkov