On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:59:41PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's simply not possible.
> > We *have* to mess with it.
> >
> > Just go read the GetCommandLine docu if you don't believe it.
>
> No, don't do that, run a test program instead.
I am starting to work on the advapi32 functions. I was wondering if I
make changes to the stub files that are there how often to I create
patches or update using CVS?
Should I create patches first?
Have the function design and implementation for these functions been
dicussed before?
Shane
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Johan Gill wrote:
> This patch moves the real mode handling of int09 (at least it's supposed
> to) to winedos.dll.
...
> +static HMODULE DosModule = 0;
> +void (*func)(CONTEXT86 *context);
> +if (DosModule == 0)
> + DosModule = GetModuleHandleA("winedos");
>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:59:41PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's simply not possible.
> > We *have* to mess with it.
> >
> > Just go read the GetCommandLine docu if you don't believe it.
>
> No, don't do that, run a test program instead.
Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's simply not possible.
> We *have* to mess with it.
>
> Just go read the GetCommandLine docu if you don't believe it.
No, don't do that, run a test program instead. You'll find that the
command-line is *not* modified.
Anyway, could you please try t
Francois Gouget wrote:
>
>Here's the testcase I wrote:
>
> #define GetObject You cannot use GetObject in this context
>
> #define ICOM_FN(xfn)fn ## xfn
>
> #define DECLARE1(xfn)void ICOM_FN(xfn) (void);
> #define DECLARE2(xfn)void ICOM_FN(##xfn) (void);
>
>
> ICOM_FN(GetObje
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 10:13:56PM -0500, Guy L. Albertelli wrote:
> FWIW, the debugger would probably start if the registry entry was:
>
> "G:debugger/winedbg %ld %ld"
>
> This seems to be the same problem that Eric Pouech and I discussed on 12/30.
Yep, it most probably is, of course.
But on
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: RESUBMIT: CreateProcess
>
>fixme:pthread_kill_other_threads_np
>G:\winedbg: cannot find '134622232'
>err:seh:UnhandledExceptionF
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 09:42:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Or is the Wine code incorrect/fixable somehow ?
> > And does it make sense to stick with my current implementation anyway ?
> >
> > Or maybe we ought to modify SearchPath to retur
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 06:13:18PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> IMO it was much more correct before your patch... I don't think you
> should be changing the paths inside the cmdline. Exactly what doesn't
> work in the current implementation? do you have a trace showing the
> problem?
That mi
Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After:
> trace:module:get_appname_cmdline -> appname '(null)', cmdline
>'/usr/local/bin/winedbg 134621800 96'
> trace:module:get_appname_cmdline trying '/usr/local/bin/winedbg'
> trace:module:get_appname_cmdline <- appname 'G:\winedbg', cmdline 'G:\wine
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 12:37:11AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Warning: configuration loaded by the server from
> /home/whit/.wine/config,
> file /home/whit/.winerc was ignored.
> err:thunk:_loadthunk Unable to find thunk data 'Cctl1632_ThunkData16'
> in commctrl.dll, required by co
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Here's the testcase I wrote:
>
> #define GetObject You cannot use GetObject in this context
>
> #define ICOM_FN(xfn)fn ## xfn
>
> #define DECLARE1(xfn)void ICOM_FN(xfn) (void);
> #define DECLARE2(xfn)void ICOM_FN(##xfn) (void);
If t
Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The program is calling ESCAPE(), which locks DC (level 3).
>
> This in turn calls WINEPS.Escape(), which in turn calls WriteSpool, which
> calls the 16 bit abortproc function.
>
> I have not yet understood how to solve this problem, just unlocking
>
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, David Elliott wrote:
> Attached is a simple .c file (not even a program, intended for input for the
> preprocessor) and the output when run with the processors from the latest
> RH7 errata GCC 2.96 and the RH7 KGCC 2.91.66 (egcs 1.1.2). I included the
> output from stderr of
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 06:36:25PM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the following locking problem while printing from a 16bit application:
>
> |Ret USER.34: ENABLEWINDOW() retval=0x ret=0277:365e ds=027f
> |Call GDI.38: ESCAPE(0x14f0,0x000a,0x0025,0x03875ef4,0x) ret=02
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> I notice however that all the icons that should be
> on the right hand end of the menu bar are still positioned immediately to
> the right of the rightmost text menu item. I seem to recall that this was
> discussed some while ago, and was though
> Perhaps we could have two ways of entering keywords,
> a drop down list of trusted keywords, and an optional
> free form entry of keywords. If it's easy to skip the
> optional section, most people would, and then we wouldn't
> get too much garbage in.
For me it would have been better to ha
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 03:24:29AM -0500, James Abbatiello wrote:
> Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > You don't really want to do that.
> > That way you have to do that check *every* time you call that function.
> > Much better to do it once upon startup (somewhere in that file preferrably),
> > IMHO.
>
>
Lionel Ulmer wrote:
> I have one problem with keywords is that I do not trust anyone to enter
> 'correct' informations :-) IMHO, the more directed the 'user' is, the better
> (or else, all the burden is reported on the database maintainer who will
> need to rewrite 90 % of the submissions).
>
> I
Hi
This may be an easy question to answer. After sucessfully compiling the
12/22 with the Transgaming patch, I get the following error when I attempt to
run wine: (Any option even wine --version)
wwine: Symbol 'Callout' has different size in shared object, consider
re-linking
Client protoco
As you may recall from some while ago I have been trying to persuade
Windows Java runtimes to function. Previously there was a problem with
font selection.
I recently downloaded the 1222 drop, compiled it, and tried my little test
case. This time it does not even get as far as displaying the wi
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 08:00:36AM -0500, Francois Jacques wrote:
> If the network is not lying to me again,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:37:39PM -0800:
>
> > Francois Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > +static HRESULT
> > > +INVOKE_InvokeStdCallFunction(IUnkn
> has anybody had any success getting windows explorer going?
Not really.
> Anybody know what KERNEL32_99() is meant to do?
It checks whether the clock has to be switched from daylight
savings time to standard time or vice versa.
> it appears to me that everytime it is run, it is running the
If the network is not lying to me again,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 01:37:39PM -0800:
> Francois Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > +static HRESULT
> > +INVOKE_InvokeStdCallFunction(IUnknown* pIUnk,
> > + FUNCDESC* pFuncDesc,
> > +
> This should be a suitable simple testcase for a preprocessor.
> Maybe it
> would be good to see the results on other C preprocessors
> like Solaris C so
> that we can get a good idea if gcc should continue to support
> this even
> though I don't think it is specifically mentioned in any C st
Attached is a simple .c file (not even a program, intended for input for the
preprocessor) and the output when run with the processors from the latest
RH7 errata GCC 2.96 and the RH7 KGCC 2.91.66 (egcs 1.1.2). I included the
output from stderr of the newer preprocessor as well.
This should be a
Francois Gouget wrote:
>Yes, there is a problem with a change I made recently. There's been
> some discussion about it during this weekend already.
>Maybe the best for you is to revert back to an old version of
> 'include/wine/obj_base.h' (or switch to gcc 2.95) while I try to sort it
> o
Hi,
has anybody had any success getting windows explorer going?
Anybody know what KERNEL32_99() is meant to do?
it appears to me that everytime it is run, it is running the "RunOnce"
stuff, which probably belongs to windows installation... (thats the
code that renames the Program Files directory
Andreas Mohr wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:39:41PM -0500, James Abbatiello wrote:
>
>> Might something like the attached work? It doesn't break 2.1.2, and
>> keeps the hacks isolated to library/port.c. Andreas?
>>
>> diff -u -r1.8 port.c
>> --- library/port.c 2000/12/19 19:38:48
30 matches
Mail list logo
