Re: Unimplemented function?
Thanks Maarten. Your tip solved the issue. I wonder in any case if this should make rethink wine strategy and instead of forwarding funcs to a MS-name dll, depending on the API wine dlls could b e created. e.g. msvcrt.dll, msvr71.dll, msvcr80.dll, msvcr90.dll, ... --> winecr Other APIs could also be considered such as the long spoken d3dx: d3dx9_36.dll, d3dx9_37.dll, d3dx9_38.dll ...d3dx10_43.dll, d3dx10_44.dll ... --> wined3dx msvcp... --> winecp msxml2.dll, msxml3.dll, msxml4.dll ... --> winexml Luis
Re: Unimplemented function?
Hey, On 09/18/2011 12:52 PM, Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez wrote: > It seems that there is a regression in wine 1.3.28. Before bi-secting, I woul > dlike to understand how that can happen. Apparently PlaChessV5.exe crashes > due to: > > wine: Call from 0x68215ca8 to unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._snwprintf_s, > aborting > > > but when I look at the spec file, the function is defined: > > @ varargs _snwprintf_s(ptr long long wstr) MSVCRT__snwprintf_s > > and it exists in wcs.c > > How is it that them it results as undefined? Are you using a native msvcrt dll? ~Maarten
Unimplemented function?
It seems that there is a regression in wine 1.3.28. Before bi-secting, I woul dlike to understand how that can happen. Apparently PlaChessV5.exe crashes due to: wine: Call from 0x68215ca8 to unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._snwprintf_s, aborting but when I look at the spec file, the function is defined: @ varargs _snwprintf_s(ptr long long wstr) MSVCRT__snwprintf_s and it exists in wcs.c How is it that them it results as undefined? Luis
Re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > Qian wrote: >>1. If a function is implemented in wine dll as a stup, then usually >>this function won't cause crash, >>and the wine debug will output "fix:me ...stup" rather then >>"Unimplemented function", is it right? > > I think "stub" is somewhat ambiguous, it can mean either > something without an implementation, or something > with a very minimal implementation. > But yes, if something is listed in dlls/*/*.spec as a stub, > you get 'Unimplemented function', and if something is listed in > grep FIXME.*stub dlls/*/*.c > as a stub, you get > "fixme: ... stub". > Thanks very much! I think now I understand. Thanks Ricardo as well. Grateful to you all! >>2. If a function is listed in the Wine API guide, >>http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ , and marked as stup, >>then this function must be implemented as a stup in wine source code, >>is it right? > > The Wine API guide is not a very reliable guide, it might be out > of date. Better to just look in the source code. > - Dan > -- Regards, Qian Hong - Sent from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/
re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
Qian wrote: >1. If a function is implemented in wine dll as a stup, then usually >this function won't cause crash, >and the wine debug will output "fix:me ...stup" rather then >"Unimplemented function", is it right? I think "stub" is somewhat ambiguous, it can mean either something without an implementation, or something with a very minimal implementation. But yes, if something is listed in dlls/*/*.spec as a stub, you get 'Unimplemented function', and if something is listed in grep FIXME.*stub dlls/*/*.c as a stub, you get "fixme: ... stub". >2. If a function is listed in the Wine API guide, >http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ , and marked as stup, >then this function must be implemented as a stup in wine source code, >is it right? The Wine API guide is not a very reliable guide, it might be out of date. Better to just look in the source code. - Dan
Re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
2011/2/2 Qian Hong > Dear Nikolay and James, > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:09 PM, James McKenzie > wrote: > > Qian: > > > > I would like to echo Nikolay's comment and add one more: > > > > Please search through the Bug Reports before submitting a new one. > > I really feel very sorry, I apologize for posting such issues the > wrong place and making noise. Thank you for your reminder and your > nice work on wine. > I have searched the Bugzilla with ntoskrnl.exe as keyword carefully, > it seems that none of the current bugs mentions unimplemented function > ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces, so I report a new issue here: > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25964 > Wish it not a duplicate. > > > > > You might receive more assistance on the Wine User list as well. Most of > > the developers lurk there. > > > > I'll post such mails on the Wine User list from now on. > However, may I modestly consults below questions here: > > 1. If a function is implemented in wine dll as a stup, then usually > this function won't cause crash, > and the wine debug will output "fix:me ...stup" rather then > "Unimplemented function", is it right? > 2. If a function is listed in the Wine API guide, > http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ , and marked as stup, > then this function must be implemented as a stup in wine source code, > is it right? > > I've read http://wiki.winehq.org/DebugChannels and > http://wiki.winehq.org/Developers-Hints, > but I still have some confusion. > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Qian Hong > - > Sent from Ubuntu > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > > Yes, a stub is a first step to implement a function. Sometimes a stub is enough for the application to proceed. WineAPI is parsed from wine code, so if it says "stub" in the spec file of that dll it means there is no implementation yet, and a stub can be produced.
Re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
Dear Nikolay and James, On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:09 PM, James McKenzie wrote: > Qian: > > I would like to echo Nikolay's comment and add one more: > > Please search through the Bug Reports before submitting a new one. I really feel very sorry, I apologize for posting such issues the wrong place and making noise. Thank you for your reminder and your nice work on wine. I have searched the Bugzilla with ntoskrnl.exe as keyword carefully, it seems that none of the current bugs mentions unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces, so I report a new issue here: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25964 Wish it not a duplicate. > > You might receive more assistance on the Wine User list as well. Most of > the developers lurk there. > I'll post such mails on the Wine User list from now on. However, may I modestly consults below questions here: 1. If a function is implemented in wine dll as a stup, then usually this function won't cause crash, and the wine debug will output "fix:me ...stup" rather then "Unimplemented function", is it right? 2. If a function is listed in the Wine API guide, http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ , and marked as stup, then this function must be implemented as a stup in wine source code, is it right? I've read http://wiki.winehq.org/DebugChannels and http://wiki.winehq.org/Developers-Hints, but I still have some confusion. Thanks a lot! > Thank you. > -- Regards, Qian Hong - Sent from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/
Re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
On 1/29/11 6:53 AM, Qian Hong wrote: Dear all, While test another online bank with wine ActiveX, I got an unimplemented fuction of ntoskrnl: IoGetDeviceInterfaces, I found it listed in http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ntoskrnl.html as a stup, so I can't understand this log: wine: Unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces called at address 0x7b839552 (thread 0022), starting debugger... Grateful for any explain! Qian: I would like to echo Nikolay's comment and add one more: Please search through the Bug Reports before submitting a new one. You might receive more assistance on the Wine User list as well. Most of the developers lurk there. Thank you. James McKenzie
Re: ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
On 1/29/2011 16:53, Qian Hong wrote: Dear all, While test another online bank with wine ActiveX, I got an unimplemented fuction of ntoskrnl: IoGetDeviceInterfaces, I found it listed in http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ntoskrnl.html as a stup, so I can't understand this log: wine: Unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces called at address 0x7b839552 (thread 0022), starting debugger... Grateful for any explain Please open bugs for such issues. wine-devel is for development process related discussions, not for user support.
ntoskrnl.exe: unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces
Dear all,
While test another online bank with wine ActiveX,
I got an unimplemented fuction of ntoskrnl: IoGetDeviceInterfaces,
I found it listed in http://source.winehq.org/WineAPI/ntoskrnl.html as a stup,
so I can't understand this log:
wine: Unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces called
at address 0x7b839552 (thread 0022), starting debugger...
Grateful for any explain!
env:
wine1.3.12 on Ubuntu 10.04
Here are the steps:
1. install an ActiveX from
https://e.bank.ecitic.com/perbank5/plugs/CNCBSecPkg_EN.exe
$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ winetricks -q mfc42
$ wine CNCBSecPkg_EN.exe
fixme:ole:DllRegisterServer stub
fixme:win:DisableProcessWindowsGhosting : stub
fixme:msg:ChangeWindowMessageFilter c057 0001
fixme:msg:ChangeWindowMessageFilter c057 0001
fixme:msg:ChangeWindowMessageFilter c057 0001
fixme:ole:CoCreateInstance no instance created for interface
{ea1afb91-9e28-4b86-90e9-9e9f8a5eefaf} of class
{56fdf344-fd6d-11d0-958a-006097c9a090}, hres is 0x80004002
fixme:sfc:SfcIsFileProtected ((nil), L"C:\\Program
Files\\\4e2d\4fe1\94f6\884c\7f51\94f6\5b89\5168\63a7\4ef6\\unins000.exe")
stub
fixme:win:WINNLSEnableIME hUnknown1 0x1011a bUnknown2 0: stub!
fixme:win:WINNLSEnableIME hUnknown1 0x1011a bUnknown2 -1: stub!
fixme:win:WINNLSEnableIME hUnknown1 0x1011a bUnknown2 0: stub!
wine: Call from 0x7b839552 to unimplemented function
ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces, aborting
wine: Unimplemented function ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces called
at address 0x7b839552 (thread 002b), starting debugger...
wine: Call from 0x7b839552 to unimplemented function
ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces, aborting
wine: Call from 0x7b839552 to unimplemented function
ntoskrnl.exe.IoGetDeviceInterfaces, aborting
2. open the online bank entry with wine builtin IE, then IE will crash:
$ wine iexplore https://e.bank.ecitic.com/perbank5/signIn.do
Please checkout the full log here:
http://pastebin.com/rbAg7gwj
Should I file a singel bug in ntoskrnl component , or separate bugs,
one for ntoskrnl and one for the IE crashing?
Generalliy what component should I switch while file a bug about IE crashing?
Many thanks!
--
Regards,
Qian Hong
-
Sent from Ubuntu
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Re: [Bug 25402] Woody Two Legs crashes with unimplemented function msvcr90.dll._wcslwr_s
the spec should read wstr instead of ptr A+ 2011/1/25 > http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25402 > > Andrew Millington changed: > > What|Removed |Added > > > Keywords||patch > > --- Comment #5 from Andrew Millington > 2011-01-25 01:23:06 CST --- > After applying http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/70240 it complains > about > unimplemented function d3dx9_36.dll.D3DXFloat32To16Array and that is bug > #25769. > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the > above URL to reply. > --- You are receiving this mail because: --- > You are watching all bug changes. > > > -- -- Eric Pouech
Re: setupapi.dll: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status (Crashing while running a USB production tool)
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, James McKenzie wrote: > On 1/19/11 12:52 PM, Qian Hong wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Ricardo Filipe >> wrote: >>> >>> That should only need a stub to go forward (setupapi is already full of >>> them). >>> If you are not able to patch wine with a stub of that function then yeah, >>> open a bug report. >> >> Thanks for reply :) >> Reported here : http://goo.gl/FHely >> >> > Two things: > > ONE; CEASE TOP POSTING IMMEDIATELY. You have been told time and time again > not to do this. Please read RFC 1855 if you need to know why. A quick search in my email doesn't show anyone telling Qian not to top post. Of course it is discouraged, but no need to yell about it. > TWO: CEASE USING GOO.GL FOR SHORT URL POSTING. We expect a full URL to the > Wine Bugzilla to be posted here and it is preferred. Again, no reason to yell. That said, Qian, please do post the full url, bugzilla urls are not that long :-). -- -Austin
Re: setupapi.dll: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status (Crashing while running a USB production tool)
On 1/19/11 12:52 PM, Qian Hong wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: That should only need a stub to go forward (setupapi is already full of them). If you are not able to patch wine with a stub of that function then yeah, open a bug report. Thanks for reply :) Reported here : http://goo.gl/FHely Two things: ONE; CEASE TOP POSTING IMMEDIATELY. You have been told time and time again not to do this. Please read RFC 1855 if you need to know why. TWO: CEASE USING GOO.GL FOR SHORT URL POSTING. We expect a full URL to the Wine Bugzilla to be posted here and it is preferred. James McKenzie
Re: setupapi.dll: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status (Crashing while running a USB production tool)
Thanks for reply :) Reported here : http://goo.gl/FHely On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Ricardo Filipe wrote: > > That should only need a stub to go forward (setupapi is already full of > them). > If you are not able to patch wine with a stub of that function then yeah, > open a bug report. -- Regards, Qian Hong - Send from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/
Re: setupapi.dll: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status (Crashing while running a USB production tool)
2011/1/19 Qian Hong > Dear All, while testing a USB production tool with unofficial USB > patches + native oleaut32.dll, > I got a crashing and such logs: > > wine: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function > setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status, aborting > wine: Unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status called > at address 0x7b839292 (thread 002f), starting debugger... > Unhandled exception: unimplemented function > setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status called in 32-bit code (0x7b839292). > Register dump: > CS:0023 SS:002b DS:002b ES:002b FS:0063 GS:006b > EIP:7b839292 ESP:003158b8 EBP:0031591c EFLAGS:0246( - -- I Z- -P- > ) > EAX:7b82540d EBX:7b887ff4 ECX: EDX:8100 > ESI:8100 EDI:0001 > Stack dump: > 0x003158b8: 0031593c 0008 00020108 8100 > 0x003158c8: 0001 7b839292 0002 > 0x003158d8: 7ebc3d60 7ebc42a9 3218 3218 > 0x003158e8: 0001 989c7900 > 0x003158f8: 0004 7eba6cfb 7ebd2ff4 > 0x00315908: 0031595c 7b83924a 0111 > Backtrace: > =>0 0x7b839292 RaiseException+0x52(code=0x8100, flags=0x1, > nbargs=0x2, args=0x31593c) > [/home/fracting/wine-git/dlls/kernel32/except.c:84] in kernel32 > (0x0031594c) > > ... > > > Should I post a new bug? > > Best wishes! > > -- > Regards, > Qian Hong > - > Send from Ubuntu > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > > That should only need a stub to go forward (setupapi is already full of them). If you are not able to patch wine with a stub of that function then yeah, open a bug report.
setupapi.dll: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status (Crashing while running a USB production tool)
Dear All, while testing a USB production tool with unofficial USB patches + native oleaut32.dll, I got a crashing and such logs: wine: Call from 0x7b839292 to unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status, aborting wine: Unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status called at address 0x7b839292 (thread 002f), starting debugger... Unhandled exception: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.CM_Get_DevNode_Status called in 32-bit code (0x7b839292). Register dump: CS:0023 SS:002b DS:002b ES:002b FS:0063 GS:006b EIP:7b839292 ESP:003158b8 EBP:0031591c EFLAGS:0246( - -- I Z- -P- ) EAX:7b82540d EBX:7b887ff4 ECX: EDX:8100 ESI:8100 EDI:0001 Stack dump: 0x003158b8: 0031593c 0008 00020108 8100 0x003158c8: 0001 7b839292 0002 0x003158d8: 7ebc3d60 7ebc42a9 3218 3218 0x003158e8: 0001 989c7900 0x003158f8: 0004 7eba6cfb 7ebd2ff4 0x00315908: 0031595c 7b83924a 0111 Backtrace: =>0 0x7b839292 RaiseException+0x52(code=0x8100, flags=0x1, nbargs=0x2, args=0x31593c) [/home/fracting/wine-git/dlls/kernel32/except.c:84] in kernel32 (0x0031594c) ... Should I post a new bug? Best wishes! -- Regards, Qian Hong - Send from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/
msvcrt unimplemented function calls
I see calls to the following two functions just prior to a crash when testing wine64. Any idea what these are? wine: Call from 0x7b8497d9 to unimplemented function msvcp80.dll.??0?$comp...@n@std@@q...@aebn0@Z, aborting wine: Call from 0x7f7b04cf40d9 to unimplemented function MSVCR80.dll.__C_specific_handler, aborting err:seh:setup_exception stack overflow 2432 bytes in thread 0009 eip 7f7b04d32341 esp 7f7b03b10c80 stack 0x7f7b03b1-0x7f7b03b11000-0x7f7b03c1 Segmentation fault Thanks.
Re: Today's git has unimplemented function msxml4 leading to stack dump when installing dragon naturallyspeaking
>On 2/4/2010 00:08, Susan Cragin wrote: >> wine-1.1.37-412-g9a92f9c >> With today's git got a debug, dump, etc., while installing dragon >> naturallyspeaking. >> have log >> >> wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function >> msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting >> wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address >> 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... >> >Susan, please try with current, patch is in. Let me know if you still >have a problem with it. Bug has gone BTW -- DNS did install yesterday even with the bug.
Re: Today's git has unimplemented function msxml4 leading to stack dump when installing dragon naturallyspeaking
On 2/4/2010 00:08, Susan Cragin wrote: wine-1.1.37-412-g9a92f9c With today's git got a debug, dump, etc., while installing dragon naturallyspeaking. have log wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... Susan, please try with current, patch is in. Let me know if you still have a problem with it.
Re: Today's git has unimplemented function msxml4 leading to stack dump when installing dragon naturallyspeaking
On 2/4/2010 00:08, Susan Cragin wrote: wine-1.1.37-412-g9a92f9c With today's git got a debug, dump, etc., while installing dragon naturallyspeaking. have log wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... Hi, Susan. Try this patch http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2010-February/084524.html Looks like somethings try to use it directly, bypassing normal registration procedure, but I'm not sure. Btw, did you use msxml4 before that?
Re: Today's git has unimplemented function msxml4 leading to stack dump when installing dragon naturallyspeaking
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Susan Cragin wrote: > wine-1.1.37-412-g9a92f9c > With today's git got a debug, dump, etc., while installing dragon > naturallyspeaking. > have log > > wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function > msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting > wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address > 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... A stub was added today: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=4f1d040eaf7ecdd519848f75485b7844dda2b82b If DNS worked fine before, either it provides its own, or can cope without it. You can set it to native or disabled in winecfg, which should work around it until DllRegisterServer is implemented. -- -Austin
Today's git has unimplemented function msxml4 leading to stack dump when installing dragon naturallyspeaking
wine-1.1.37-412-g9a92f9c With today's git got a debug, dump, etc., while installing dragon naturallyspeaking. have log wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... - relevant portion below - fixme:reg:GetNativeSystemInfo (0x8b1754) using GetSystemInfo() fixme:msi:msi_unimplemented_action_stub SetODBCFolders -> 234 ignored L"Directory" table values fixme:msi:msi_unimplemented_action_stub MigrateFeatureStates -> 1 ignored L"Upgrade" table values fixme:msi:msi_unimplemented_action_stub RemoveExistingProducts -> 1 ignored L"Upgrade" table values fixme:msi:msi_unimplemented_action_stub MsiUnpublishAssemblies -> 8 ignored L"MsiAssembly" table values fixme:msi:msi_unimplemented_action_stub SelfUnregModules -> 1 ignored L"SelfReg" table values wine: Call from 0x7b8364e2 to unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer, aborting wine: Unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called at address 0x7b8364e2 (thread 0027), starting debugger... Unhandled exception: unimplemented function msxml4.dll.DllRegisterServer called in 32-bit code (0x7b8364e2). Register dump: CS:0073 SS:007b DS:007b ES:007b FS:0033 GS:003b EIP:7b8364e2 ESP:0033fd24 EBP:0033fd88 EFLAGS:0207( - -- I - -P-C) EAX:7b826105 EBX:7b881ff4 ECX:33b50814 EDX:0033fd44 ESI:8100 EDI:00110429 Stack dump: 0x0033fd24: 0033fda8 0008 003c 8100 0x0033fd34: 0001 7b8364e2 0002 0x0033fd44: 33b50814 33b50831 68311ff4 33b4 0x0033fd54: 0033fd74 0033fd88 7b84e9dd 33b4 0x0033fd64: 0033fd74 0033fd7c 7ffd8c00 0x0033fd74: 00120011 6830ff9d 7b83649a 68311ff4 Backtrace: =>0 0x7b8364e2 RaiseException+0x52(code=2147483904, flags=1, nbargs=2, args=0x33fda8) [/home/susan/wine/dlls/kernel32/except.c:84] in kernel32 (0x0033fd88) 1 0x33b507b8 __wine_spec_unimplemented_stub+0x38(module="msxml4.dll", function="DllRegisterServer") [/home/susan/wine/dlls/winecrt0/stub.c:34] in msxml4 (0x0033fdb8) 2 0x33b50588 __wine_stub_DllUnregisterServer() in msxml4 (0x0033fe58) 3 0x6830fe0c __wine_spec_exe_entry+0x7c(peb=0x7ffdf000) [/home/susan/wine/dlls/winecrt0/exe_entry.c:37] in regsvr32 (0x0033fea8) 4 0x7b8586d4 start_process+0x54(peb=) [/home/susan/wine/dlls/kernel32/process.c:1026] in kernel32 (0x0033fee8) 5 0x7bc6ed54 call_thread_func+0xc() in ntdll (0x0033fef8) 6 0x7bc6ef20 call_thread_entry_point+0x70(entry=0x7b858680, arg=0x7ffdf000) [/home/susan/wine/dlls/ntdll/signal_i386.c:2426] in ntdll (0x0033ffc8) 7 0x7bc4aefa in ntdll (+0x3aefa) (0x0033ffe8) 0x7b8364e2 RaiseException+0x52 [/home/susan/wine/dlls/kernel32/except.c:84] in kernel32: subl $4,%esp 84 RtlRaiseException( &record ); Modules: Module Address Debug info Name (70 modules) ELF 33b3f000-33b53000 Dwarf msxml4 \-PE 33b4-33b53000 \ msxml4 ELF 6800-6801d000 Deferredld-linux.so.2 ELF 6801d000-68158000 Deferredlibwine.so.1 ELF 68158000-68171000 Deferredlibpthread.so.0 ELF 68171000-682c5000 Deferredlibc.so.6 ELF 682c5000-682c9000 Deferredlibdl.so.2 ELF 682c9000-682d1000 Deferredlibnss_compat.so.2 ELF 682d1000-682e8000 Deferredlibnsl.so.1 ELF 682e8000-682f2000 Deferredlibnss_nis.so.2 ELF 682f2000-682fe000 Deferredlibnss_files.so.2 ELF 682fe000-68313000 Dwarf regsvr32 \-PE 6830-68313000 \ regsvr32 ELF 68313000-6836b000 Deferredadvapi32 \-PE 6832-6836b000 \ advapi32 ELF 6836b000-683db000 Deferredrpcrt4 \-PE 6838-683db000 \ rpcrt4 ELF 683db000-684e8000 Deferreduser32 \-PE 683f-684e8000 \ user32 ELF 684e8000-68572000 Deferredgdi32 \-PE 684f-68572000 \ gdi32 ELF 68572000-6861 Deferredkrnl386.exe16.so PE 6858-6861 Deferredkrnl386.exe16 ELF 6861-68625000 Deferredsystem.drv16.so PE 6862-68625000 Deferredsystem.drv16 ELF 68625000-68639000 Deferredcomm.drv16.so PE 6863-68639000 Deferredcomm.drv16 ELF 68639000-68664000 Deferredgdi.exe16.so PE 6864-68664000 Deferredgdi.exe16 ELF 68664000-686da000 Deferredlibfreetype.so.6 ELF 686da000-686ef000 Deferredlibz.so.1 ELF 686ef000-6871f000 Deferredlibfontconfig.so.1 ELF
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Tuesday 20 November 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > mhhh - since it cost me more then one hour to find out why my machine > reboots and triggering a reboot by just _reading_ a file on my system, > device node or not is at least very weird behaviour from a user`s > perspective. Root's perspective != user's perspective. Normal users don't have access to /dev/watchdog (if they do, your system is misconfigured). > it`s looks a little bit too simple for me. triggering a reboot just by some > simple open() and read() and close() ? let`s wait what the maintainer has > to tell. If you do it as root - yes. /dev/watchdog won't be the only culprit. Cheers, Kuba
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Monday 19 November 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes, Wine shouldn't be able to do that. You're not running Wine > > as root are you? > > whoops - i did. shame on me :) > > i retried with ordinary account and the crash didn`t happen there. > anyway - should i expect such problems with root ? If selinux is not in use, root can write to /proc/kcore for example. Do not run anything as root unless you are doing system administration. It's as easy as that. Cheers, Kuba
Re: handle unimplemented function stubs
Am Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 13:55:59 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I know, that I can find a workaround for this case, but this in not my > problem. How can I handle, in principle, such exceptions? What is the > reason for creating a function stub without an implementation ??? The reason is often that there is an application that tries to load the function, but never calls it. It refuses to start without getting a pointer to this unused function. Or an application that refuses to run if it doesn't like the exports from a DLL. For example, copy protection systems might check the exports, and refuse if your DLL has different exports than Windows. The @stub stubs are pretty rare nowadays, for exactly the reason you give. Usual stubs have a real implementation function which just returns an error or OK and writes a note to the FIXME channel. The stub in question was added by patch 27e8b829a4cc56969836c0dbbb4db4b775d52a9f, which was intended to fix bug #9116. To answer your question what to do, the usual way to fix this is to implement the function in Wine. I understand that this is most likely not a suitable solution for you, after all you're working on your application, not Wine. I do not know advapi32, so I cannot implement this function myself, but if no one steps up in the next days I can send a small patch that just adds a nicer stub that doesn't crash. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
handle unimplemented function stubs
Hello all,
I'm a Windows software developer and I'm trying to execute an application under
the wine environment.
Now I have a problem introduced with wine 0.9.49.
I use the function RegOverridePredefKey from the advapi32.dll.
To be compatible with older windows versions, I use the following code:
LONG WINAPI (*RegOverridePredefKey)(HKEY hKey, HKEY hNewHKey);
HMODULE hMod=GetModuleHandle("Advapi32");
if (hMod)
(FARPROC)RegOverridePredefKey=GetProcAddress(hMod,"RegOverridePredefKey");
if (RegOverridePredefKey)
RegOverridePredefKey(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, hKey);
In wine 0.9.49 a stub entry for this function was created, but the
implementation is missing.
The result is, that the GetProcAddress function is successful, but the
RegOverridePredefKey call fails.
I can catch the EXCEPTION_WINE_STUB exception (see code below), but the
application will nevertheless closed.
if (RegOverridePredefKey)
{
long err = ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED;
try
{ // test for C-based structured exceptions
err=RegOverridePredefKey(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, hKey);
}
#define EXCEPTION_WINE_STUB 0x8100
__except(GetExceptionCode()==EXCEPTION_WINE_STUB ?
EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER : EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH)
{
RegOverridePredefKey=NULL;
}
}
What can I do ?
I know, that I can find a workaround for this case, but this in not my problem.
How can I handle, in principle, such exceptions?
What is the reason for creating a function stub without an implementation ???
Thanks
Nessi
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
> mhhh - since it cost me more then one hour to find out why my machine reboots > and triggering a reboot by just _reading_ a file on my system, device node or > not is at least very weird behaviour from a user`s perspective. > > >waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file > >(opening it and manipulating it from time to time to show that it's still > >alive. > >When you cat the file, kernel recognizes it as that such an app is taking > >over control of the watchdog and starts it. > it`s looks a little bit too simple for me. triggering a reboot just by some > simple open() and read() and close() ? > let`s wait what the maintainer has to tell. > > regards > roland > OK, Roland, but it's Linux :-). Isn't "rm -rf /" a simple command ? Yes, it is :-). Less keystrokes than "cat /dev/watchdog". And its impact is even more catastrophic :-). It's the reason why working as root is so much discouraged. With regards, Pavel Troller
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
mhhh - since it cost me more then one hour to find out why my machine reboots and triggering a reboot by just _reading_ a file on my system, device node or not is at least very weird behaviour from a user`s perspective. >waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file >(opening it and manipulating it from time to time to show that it's still >alive. >When you cat the file, kernel recognizes it as that such an app is taking over >control of the watchdog and starts it. it`s looks a little bit too simple for me. triggering a reboot just by some simple open() and read() and close() ? let`s wait what the maintainer has to tell. regards roland > Hi! > I think it's not a bug, it's a normal behaviour. > The kernel watchdog is normally not active when the machine is booted, > waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file > (opening it and manipulating it from time to time to show that it's still > alive). When you cat the file, kernel recognizes it as that such an app > is taking over control of the watchdog and starts it. However, because > cat closes the file immediately, it is not handled anymore and kernel > recognizes it as a userspace problem, thus rebooting the machine after > the timeout expires. > With regards, Pavel Troller > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Pavel Troller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 20.11.07 08:49:53 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: Hans Leidekker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wine-devel@winehq.org > Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > > i`ve tracked this down to a watchdog issue. > > > > whenever i do "cat /dev/watchdog" - my system reboots after ~1 minute. > > > > i`ve contacted the maintainer of the watchdog subsystem. > > > > looks like a bug to me. > > > > thanks > > roland > > > Hi! > I think it's not a bug, it's a normal behaviour. > The kernel watchdog is normally not active when the machine is booted, > waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file > (opening it and manipulating it from time to time to show that it's still > alive). When you cat the file, kernel recognizes it as that such an app > is taking over control of the watchdog and starts it. However, because > cat closes the file immediately, it is not handled anymore and kernel > recognizes it as a userspace problem, thus rebooting the machine after > the timeout expires. > With regards, Pavel Troller > __ Jetzt neu! Im riesigen WEB.DE Club SmartDrive Dateien freigeben und mit Freunden teilen! http://www.freemail.web.de/club/smartdrive_ttc.htm/?mc=021134
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
> i`ve tracked this down to a watchdog issue. > > whenever i do "cat /dev/watchdog" - my system reboots after ~1 minute. > > i`ve contacted the maintainer of the watchdog subsystem. > > looks like a bug to me. > > thanks > roland > Hi! I think it's not a bug, it's a normal behaviour. The kernel watchdog is normally not active when the machine is booted, waiting for an user-space daemon to start handling of /dev/watchdog file (opening it and manipulating it from time to time to show that it's still alive). When you cat the file, kernel recognizes it as that such an app is taking over control of the watchdog and starts it. However, because cat closes the file immediately, it is not handled anymore and kernel recognizes it as a userspace problem, thus rebooting the machine after the timeout expires. With regards, Pavel Troller
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
i`ve tracked this down to a watchdog issue. whenever i do "cat /dev/watchdog" - my system reboots after ~1 minute. i`ve contacted the maintainer of the watchdog subsystem. looks like a bug to me. thanks roland > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: "Hans Leidekker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 19.11.07 21:59:29 > An: wine-devel@winehq.org > Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > On Monday 19 November 2007 21:39:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > i retried with ordinary account and the crash didn`t happen there. > > anyway - should i expect such problems with root ? > > Well, a reboot is not expected but it can certainly happen. If your > app is leaking file descriptors for example, given that there are no > limits for root, it will bring your system to a halt. > > -Hans > __ Jetzt neu! Im riesigen WEB.DE Club SmartDrive Dateien freigeben und mit Freunden teilen! http://www.freemail.web.de/club/smartdrive_ttc.htm/?mc=021134
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
checked if app is leaking fd`s, but lsof didn`t tell anything special. after some investigation i came across the following entry in dmesg: iTCO_wdt: Unexpected close, not stopping watchdog seems that wine is triggering something with this - after unloading iTCO_wdt kernel module, the problem went away. looks that wine is (un-)triggering the watchdog timer and the reboot happens due to this. will further investigate (strace) - maybe i can provide some more input so, it`s probably not a wine issue regards roland > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: "Hans Leidekker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 19.11.07 21:59:29 > An: wine-devel@winehq.org > Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > On Monday 19 November 2007 21:39:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > i retried with ordinary account and the crash didn`t happen there. > > anyway - should i expect such problems with root ? > > Well, a reboot is not expected but it can certainly happen. If your > app is leaking file descriptors for example, given that there are no > limits for root, it will bring your system to a halt. > > -Hans > __ Erweitern Sie FreeMail zu einem noch leistungsstärkeren E-Mail-Postfach! Mehr Infos unter http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021131
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Monday 19 November 2007 21:39:16 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > i retried with ordinary account and the crash didn`t happen there. > anyway - should i expect such problems with root ? Well, a reboot is not expected but it can certainly happen. If your app is leaking file descriptors for example, given that there are no limits for root, it will bring your system to a halt. -Hans
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
> Yes, Wine shouldn't be able to do that. You're not running Wine > as root are you? whoops - i did. shame on me :) i retried with ordinary account and the crash didn`t happen there. anyway - should i expect such problems with root ? >Does your system log reveal anything about the crash? no, unfortunately not regards roland > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: "Hans Leidekker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 19.11.07 21:22:20 > An: "http://freemail.web.de/"; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > On Monday 19 November 2007 20:59:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > when scannnig trough drive z:\ , my notebook reboots ! > > wasn`t wine a userspace application with no kernel related stuff ? > > so it`s weird, that windirstat is crashing my notebook, isn`t it ? > > Yes, Wine shouldn't be able to do that. You're not running Wine > as root are you? Does your system log reveal anything about the crash? > > -Hans > __ XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club! Jetzt testen! http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021130
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Monday 19 November 2007 20:59:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > when scannnig trough drive z:\ , my notebook reboots ! > wasn`t wine a userspace application with no kernel related stuff ? > so it`s weird, that windirstat is crashing my notebook, isn`t it ? Yes, Wine shouldn't be able to do that. You're not running Wine as root are you? Does your system log reveal anything about the crash? -Hans
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
Hello Marcus, hello Hans,
thanks very much - that was a quick fix ! :)
I tried the latest snapshot and now was going able start windirstat.
great!
i can tell , that it basically works and i`m able to scan a disk.
despite some minor quirks like crash of the app when i click trough the cushion
treemap, there seems some major issue.
at least some very weird major issue:
when scannnig trough drive z:\ , my notebook reboots !
This happens reproduceably when windirstat is at ~100.000 entries
i had absolutely no stability issues with my notebook so far, running it for
some days now and using it very very intensive (much i/o, firefox/open with
many many windows containing flash etc)
i did an test afterwards to see if this is caused by some corrupt files or
whatever, but some
find / -type f -exec stat {} \; >/dev/null
ls -laR / >/dev/null
completes without an error.
there are around 200.000 files on my notebook.
wasn`t wine a userspace application with no kernel related stuff ?
so it`s weird, that windirstat is crashing my notebook, isn`t it ?
maybe somebody is able to reproduce ?
regards
roland
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: "Marcus Meissner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gesendet: 19.11.07 07:48:04
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: Hans Leidekker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wine-devel@winehq.org
> Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 10:14:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello Hans,
> >
> > thanks for that info.
> >
> > latest version i tried here is
> >
> > wine-0.9.49-11.3.i586.rpm
> > wine-snapshot-0.9.49.20071118-11.1.i586.rpm
> >
> > but same error.
> > maybe that`s not recent enough ?
> >
> > do i need to enable special option or add some files ?
> >
> > sorry, i`m quite new to wine and maybe i should read deeper into the docs
> > instead of posting :)
>
> It is not yet committed to the mainline repository. Once it
> is it will show up in "wine-snapshot" of the openSUSE buildservice
> of this day.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
>
___
Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 3 Monate
kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=00
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 10:14:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Hans, > > thanks for that info. > > latest version i tried here is > > wine-0.9.49-11.3.i586.rpm > wine-snapshot-0.9.49.20071118-11.1.i586.rpm > > but same error. > maybe that`s not recent enough ? > > do i need to enable special option or add some files ? > > sorry, i`m quite new to wine and maybe i should read deeper into the docs > instead of posting :) It is not yet committed to the mainline repository. Once it is it will show up in "wine-snapshot" of the openSUSE buildservice of this day. Ciao, Marcus
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
Hello Hans, thanks for that info. latest version i tried here is wine-0.9.49-11.3.i586.rpm wine-snapshot-0.9.49.20071118-11.1.i586.rpm but same error. maybe that`s not recent enough ? do i need to enable special option or add some files ? sorry, i`m quite new to wine and maybe i should read deeper into the docs instead of posting :) regards roland > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: "Hans Leidekker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Gesendet: 18.11.07 21:45:34 > An: wine-devel@winehq.org > Betreff: Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > On Sunday 18 November 2007 20:38:34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > i`m new to wine. > > I tried windirstat under wine-0.9.44-15 and crossover-office 6.2.0-1 under > > opensuse10.3 - but it doesn`t work. > > > > i`m getting > > wine: Call from 0x7b8447d0 to unimplemented function > > KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW, aborting > > wine: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW called at > > address 0x7b8447d0 (thread 0019), starting debugger... > > Unhandled exception: unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > > called in 32-bit code (0x7b844852). > > I submitted a stub implementation for this function which makes > windirstat start up fine here. > > -Hans > __ Jetzt neu! Im riesigen WEB.DE Club SmartDrive Dateien freigeben und mit Freunden teilen! http://www.freemail.web.de/club/smartdrive_ttc.htm/?mc=021134
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Sunday 18 November 2007 22:14:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > latest version i tried here is > > wine-0.9.49-11.3.i586.rpm > wine-snapshot-0.9.49.20071118-11.1.i586.rpm > > but same error. > maybe that`s not recent enough ? > > do i need to enable special option or add some files ? You can either download, patch and compile wine yourself or wait for Wine 0.9.50 to be released, which should happen within one to two weeks. -Hans
Re: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
On Sunday 18 November 2007 20:38:34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > i`m new to wine. > I tried windirstat under wine-0.9.44-15 and crossover-office 6.2.0-1 under > opensuse10.3 - but it doesn`t work. > > i`m getting > wine: Call from 0x7b8447d0 to unimplemented function > KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW, aborting > wine: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW called at address > 0x7b8447d0 (thread 0019), starting debugger... > Unhandled exception: unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW > called in 32-bit code (0x7b844852). I submitted a stub implementation for this function which makes windirstat start up fine here. -Hans
Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW
Hello ! i`m new to wine. I tried windirstat under wine-0.9.44-15 and crossover-office 6.2.0-1 under opensuse10.3 - but it doesn`t work. i`m getting wine: Call from 0x7b8447d0 to unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW, aborting wine: Unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW called at address 0x7b8447d0 (thread 0019), starting debugger... Unhandled exception: unimplemented function KERNEL32.dll.FindFirstVolumeW called in 32-bit code (0x7b844852). does somebody know when this function will be available ? is this a rarely used function? http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364425.aspx tells "Retrieves the name of a volume on a computer. FindFirstVolume is used to begin scanning the volumes of a computer." regards roland _ Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=0066
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
On 1/28/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, but I was talking about the code, not the data. :) > As for FileQueue handling I prefer to leave this case as a stub for a > while. > If it makes the case your working on work, then it can be left out till later. Are you working on an app that calls this function? > BTW, James, maybe are you were working on this function by yourself > already? > Na, I'm working on SetupGetInfInformation and related query functions as a fix for bug 4355, but after I get these in I'm heading back to advpack. -- James Hawkins
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
* On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, James Hawkins wrote: > * On 1/28/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Then we can simply remove #if 0 and be fine. No? > > No, you'd have to add the string resources for the shutdown message. > You'd also have to add handling for the FileQueue parameter because it's > missing in ReactOS. Of course, but I was talking about the code, not the data. :) As for FileQueue handling I prefer to leave this case as a stub for a while. BTW, James, maybe are you were working on this function by yourself already?
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
On 1/28/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I looked at the ReactOS implementation and saw that it was #ifdefined > > out, so I also assumed that wasn't code we should be porting back to > > Wine. Steven's comments verify this. > > Do they? Steven talks about ReactOS, not about Wine. If you really want to know if it's OK to copy it from ReactOS into Wine, ask Steven specifically. Otherwise you can try it out and see if it works. > Then we can simply remove #if 0 and be fine. No? No, you'd have to add the string resources for the shutdown message. You'd also have to add handling for the FileQueue parameter because it's missing in ReactOS. > > I think we still should able to test the reboot, only that this requires > new functionality to be added to winetest*.exe application: winetest > should be able to interrupt its execution, then it should resume it after > the reboot. IMHO that's not impossible. > If there's enough demand for that functionality, then eventually someone would implement it, though in the case of SetupPromptReboot there are enough ways to test the function without rebooting that reboot testing functionality would be extraneous. A simple way to implement such a feature without having to change the test framework is like so: 1) Add the current test executable to the RunOnce key. 2) Create a test-specific reg value, say DidReboot, that is set to 1 if we reboot. 3) Before calling the function to actually reboot, check the DidReboot value. If it's 1, set it to 0 and skip the reboot call, else set the value to 1 and reboot. -- James Hawkins
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
* On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, James Hawkins wrote: > * On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > James, I wasn't asking about how should I hack on unimplemented > > function. My interest is focused on work of another guys, which is > > done already. :) > > I based the assumption on your statement, "I stuck upon this function > right now." Yeah, I mean my debugging process has been halted due to a stubbiness (not due to lack of devel-instructions). > You said you were stuck, so I offered suggestions on how to move > forward. OK, next time I will declare I have read the Wine Developers Guide and have been following wine-devel list for a two years already. ;-) > I looked at the ReactOS implementation and saw that it was #ifdefined > out, so I also assumed that wasn't code we should be porting back to > Wine. Steven's comments verify this. Do they? Steven talks about ReactOS, not about Wine. I think Wines ExitWindowsEx() is doing fine for Wine needs. Then we can simply remove #if 0 and be fine. No? > > BTW, how would you ensure that the testing of this function succeeds > > if you pass the flag to it which reboots the machine and probably > > kills the test-process? ;-) > > I was suggesting you write tests for your own testing, not adding unit > tests to Wine's test suite, OK, now I get you, thanks. :) > You won't be able to test a successful reboot in Wine's test suite, but > you can test it with your personal tests. I think we still should able to test the reboot, only that this requires new functionality to be added to winetest*.exe application: winetest should be able to interrupt its execution, then it should resume it after the reboot. IMHO that's not impossible.
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, James Hawkins wrote: > > * On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Is anyone working on this for Wine? > > > Any ideas about the ReactOS code? > > > > Read through it thoroughly and make note of all the details of the > > function. Then write as many test cases as you can for the function. > > Test the details you found on msdn and any other cases you can think of. > > This should give you a better idea of how to implement the function > > because you'll understand what needs to happen for each particular case. > > James, I wasn't asking about how should I hack on unimplemented function. > My interest is focused on work of another guys, which is done already. :) > I based the assumption on your statement, "I stuck upon this function right now." You said you were stuck, so I offered suggestions on how to move forward. I looked at the ReactOS implementation and saw that it was #ifdefined out, so I also assumed that wasn't code we should be porting back to Wine. Steven's comments verify this. > BTW, how would you ensure that the testing of this function succeeds if > you pass the flag to it which reboots the machine and probably kills the > test-process? ;-) > I was suggesting you write tests for your own testing, not adding unit tests to Wine's test suite, though that's always good. To answer your original question, msdn states that the third parameter of SetupPromptReboot, ScanOnly, is a BOOL that determines whether the user is asked to reboot or not. If ScanOnly is TRUE, the user is not prompted to reboot, and no shutdown occurrs. msdn also says this about ScanOnly: "Use ScanOnly to determine if shutdown is necessary separately from actually initiating a shutdown." You can tests invalid parameters, using a valid FileQueue, see what values are returned etc. You won't be able to test a successful reboot in Wine's test suite, but you can test it with your personal tests. Besides that, you can set ScanOnly to TRUE and you get all the results you would get if the machine were to reboot without actually rebooting the machine. -- James Hawkins
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
Hi, On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is anyone working on this for Wine? > Any ideas about the ReactOS code? The shutdown code ExitWindowsEx calls is a complex beast. Its something like 40 steps all of which were not implemented so it was disabled until the rest of the plumbing was put in. -- Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
* On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, James Hawkins wrote: > * On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is anyone working on this for Wine? > > Any ideas about the ReactOS code? > > Read through it thoroughly and make note of all the details of the > function. Then write as many test cases as you can for the function. > Test the details you found on msdn and any other cases you can think of. > This should give you a better idea of how to implement the function > because you'll understand what needs to happen for each particular case. James, I wasn't asking about how should I hack on unimplemented function. My interest is focused on work of another guys, which is done already. :) BTW, how would you ensure that the testing of this function succeeds if you pass the flag to it which reboots the machine and probably kills the test-process? ;-)
Re: setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
On 1/27/06, Saulius Krasuckas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I stuck upon this function right now. And I see ReactOS folks already > have some implementation [*], but for some reason it is disabled. > > Is anyone working on this for Wine? > Any ideas about the ReactOS code? > Start off by reading through the msdn documentation of the function: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/setupapi/setup/setuppromptreboot.asp Read through it thoroughly and make note of all the details of the function. Then write as many test cases as you can for the function. Test the details you found on msdn and any other cases you can think of. This should give you a better idea of how to implement the function because you'll understand what needs to happen for each particular case. -- James Hawkins
setupapi: unimplemented function setupapi.dll.SetupPromptReboot
I stuck upon this function right now. And I see ReactOS folks already have some implementation [*], but for some reason it is disabled. Is anyone working on this for Wine? Any ideas about the ReactOS code? [*] http://www.reactos.org/generated/doxygen/d4/d55/lib_2setupapi_2stubs_8c-source.html#l00113
RE: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
> From: Jesse Allen > > Quick question. Does React OS or DJGPP include a portable > implementation of printf in msvcrt? I tried looking using > your source browser but I could not tell where it is actually located. It's in lib/crt/stdio (http://svn.reactos.com/viewcvs/trunk/reactos/lib/crt/stdio/) Gé van Geldorp.
Re: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
On 8/29/05, Ge van Geldorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Vijay Kiran Kamuju > > > > can we use the reactos implementation of the _mbsbtype? > > http://reactos.geldorp.nl/dc/d8d/mbbtype_8c-source.html > > > > Any ReactOS guys, please respond regarding the licensing of the above > > code? > > Most of the code in our C Runtime originates from the DJGPP compiler > package. I've checked, the DJGPP libc is LGPL. So I think using this in Wine > should be no problem. > > Gé van Geldorp. > > > > Quick question. Does React OS or DJGPP include a portable implementation of printf in msvcrt? I tried looking using your source browser but I could not tell where it is actually located. Jesse
Re: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
"Vijay Kiran Kamuju" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we can use _mbbtype reactos. > And i think according to the documentation > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore98/html/_crt__mbbtype.asp > the _mbbtype does not depend on locale information I believe that the documentation above is misleading. Native msvcrt handles locale just fine, I don't see why _mbbtype should be an exception. If you have a test showing another behaviour send it to me, and I'll see how it behaves on my locale. -- Dmitry.
Re: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
Hi Dimitry, I think we can use _mbbtype reactos. And i think according to the documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore98/html/_crt__mbbtype.asp the _mbbtype does not depend on locale information bye, vijay On 8/29/05, Ge van Geldorp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Vijay Kiran Kamuju > > > > can we use the reactos implementation of the _mbsbtype? > > http://reactos.geldorp.nl/dc/d8d/mbbtype_8c-source.html > > > > Any ReactOS guys, please respond regarding the licensing of the above > > code? > > Most of the code in our C Runtime originates from the DJGPP compiler > package. I've checked, the DJGPP libc is LGPL. So I think using this in Wine > should be no problem. > > Gé van Geldorp. > > > >
RE: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
> From: Vijay Kiran Kamuju > > can we use the reactos implementation of the _mbsbtype? > http://reactos.geldorp.nl/dc/d8d/mbbtype_8c-source.html > > Any ReactOS guys, please respond regarding the licensing of the above > code? Most of the code in our C Runtime originates from the DJGPP compiler package. I've checked, the DJGPP libc is LGPL. So I think using this in Wine should be no problem. Gé van Geldorp.
Re: BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
"Vijay Kiran Kamuju" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can we use the reactos implementation of the _mbsbtype? > http://reactos.geldorp.nl/dc/d8d/mbbtype_8c-source.html > > Any ReactOS guys, please respond regarding the licensing of the above code? The ReactOS code above at the first glance looks wrong, it doesn't take current locale into account. -- Dmitry.
BUG[1481] : unimplemented function msvcrt.dll._mbsbtype
Hi, can we use the reactos implementation of the _mbsbtype? http://reactos.geldorp.nl/dc/d8d/mbbtype_8c-source.html Any ReactOS guys, please respond regarding the licensing of the above code? Thanks, Vijay
Re: IE6 installer claims unimplemented function in advpack.dll (IsNTAdmin)
Am Mittwoch, 10. August 2005 18:37 schrieb Andreas Mohr:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:32:09AM +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote:
> > Wine CVS of about 1 hour old.
> >
> > ie6setup.exe from here:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48
> >f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en
> >
> > $ wine ie6setup.exe
> > fixme:advapi:CheckTokenMembership ((nil) 0x6ed886d0 0x7fddfd9c) stub!
> > fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\"
> > fixme:advpack:TranslateInfString ("C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\IESetup.inf"
> > "Options.NTx86" "Options.NTx86" "InstallDir" 0x10253f8 260 0x7fdcf83c
> > (nil)): stubfixme:advpack:NeedReboot (0x): stub
> > wine: Call from 0x1013ac7 to unimplemented function
> > advpack.dll.IsNTAdmin, aborting
> > wine: Unhandled exception (thread 000b), starting debugger...
>
> Well, this was supposed to get fixed by committing a patch of Robert Reif
> (Jan 10).
> That patch never got in, however...
>
> Andreas Mohr
The code path in use inside ie6setup changes around 9th July. The only way to
get ie6 installed with currect wine for me is to set advpack dll to native.
IsNTAdmin is not the last problem to solve. The next are TranslateInfString
and ExecutCab i think.
Bye Stefan
Re: IE6 installer claims unimplemented function in advpack.dll (IsNTAdmin)
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:32:09AM +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach wrote:
> Wine CVS of about 1 hour old.
>
> ie6setup.exe from here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en
>
> $ wine ie6setup.exe
> fixme:advapi:CheckTokenMembership ((nil) 0x6ed886d0 0x7fddfd9c) stub!
> fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\"
> fixme:advpack:TranslateInfString ("C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\IESetup.inf"
> "Options.NTx86" "Options.NTx86" "InstallDir" 0x10253f8 260 0x7fdcf83c
> (nil)): stubfixme:advpack:NeedReboot (0x): stub
> wine: Call from 0x1013ac7 to unimplemented function
> advpack.dll.IsNTAdmin, aborting
> wine: Unhandled exception (thread 000b), starting debugger...
Well, this was supposed to get fixed by committing a patch of Robert Reif
(Jan 10).
That patch never got in, however...
Andreas Mohr
IE6 installer claims unimplemented function in advpack.dll (IsNTAdmin)
Wine CVS of about 1 hour old.
ie6setup.exe from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en
$ wine ie6setup.exe
fixme:advapi:CheckTokenMembership ((nil) 0x6ed886d0 0x7fddfd9c) stub!
fixme:advapi:DecryptFileA "C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\"
fixme:advpack:TranslateInfString ("C:\\install\\IXP000.TMP\\IESetup.inf"
"Options.NTx86" "Options.NTx86" "InstallDir" 0x10253f8 260 0x7fdcf83c
(nil)): stubfixme:advpack:NeedReboot (0x0000): stub
wine: Call from 0x1013ac7 to unimplemented function
advpack.dll.IsNTAdmin, aborting
wine: Unhandled exception (thread 000b), starting debugger...
-HK
call to unimplemented function secur32.dll.GetComputerObjectNameW
I stuck at this while trying to install "Microsoft Visual C++ Express 2005 Beta" (large package for offline installation): trace:module:process_attach (L"secur32.dll",(nil)) - END fixme:seh:EXC_RtlRaiseException call to unimplemented function secur32.dll.GetComputerObjectNameW trace:module:GetModuleFileNameW L"D:\\msdownld.tmp\\IXP000.TMP\\install.exe" trace:module:GetModuleFileNameW L"D:\\msdownld.tmp\\IXP000.TMP\\install.exe" err:seh:setup_exception nested exception on signal stack in thread 000d eip 400dddc6 esp 40015c6c stack 0x4066-0x4076 trace:module:LdrShutdownProcess () MS documents some things [1] about the GetComputerObjectNameW() function in the Platform SDK: * Header: Declared in Secext.h; include Security.h. AFAICS Wine has no "secext.h" file in its "include/" directory. Where should I declare this function and the enumeration it uses [2] would I start implementing the function? [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/shared/deeptree/asp/rightframe.asp?dtcfg=/library/deeptreeconfig.xml&url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/getcomputerobjectname.asp?frame=true&hidetoc=false [2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/shared/deeptree/asp/rightframe.asp?dtcfg=/library/deeptreeconfig.xml&url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/extended_name_format_str.asp?frame=true&hidetoc=false
