On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Massimo Del Fedele <m...@veneto.com> wrote: > Reece Dunn ha scritto: >> 2009/1/27 Massimo Del Fedele <m...@veneto.com>: >>> Any opinion about this one ? Could it be a good candidate for inclusion >>> in wine tree ? >> >> Hi, >> >> I have used this with StarCraft, running it with and without the DIB >> engine enabled. I find the environment variable makes it very easy to >> switch between them during testing, so I am for this (as well as being >> able to set the default option via the registry). > > Thanx, that was what I wanted to have :-) >> >> My experience with the game is that it is actually slower and has a >> noticible stutter when compared to the non-DIB engine version. This >> does not mean that I am opposed to this going in, as I know that the >> blitting code is not yet optimised. In fact, I am for this to go in >> (provided that Alexandre accepts it). > > Yep, the blitting code is just a "placeholder" to make most apps run, > not an optimized one. Making it optimized is trivial but requires many > code lines, so before proceeding I thought to wait for "approval" of the > way the engine is done. The same is for text stuffs. >> >> The only thing I would say is to break it up. For example, there are >> bits that you have taken from Jesse and Huw's efforts that are various >> isolated patches. These should be sent in a git patch format so that >> the authors can be attributed in the Wine git tree as well as being in >> the Copyright notices. > > Well, that one could be only partially done, because I modified most of > both Huw and Jesse's code. I let Jesse and Huw's copyright notices > because of that, but going back from original code, joining the 2 and > adding my mods by mean of many git patches would be overkilling. > Even more, both trees were somehow outdated in respect to actual wine > tree, so the automatic merge didn't work for some parts of code. > I'd see easier to put the 3 names on each patch when (if) merged with > main tree. > > Aside from that, if you could break the DIB >> patch into smaller logical chunks it will be easier to review and get >> the patches in. > > Well, that also can be partially done : > > 1- First GDI32 patch, the one that allows to insert DIB Driver, without > blitting (mostly from Huw's tree, but driver loading displaced from > SelectBitmap to CreateDC by me, with some additions to avoid crashes if > driver is not present. > 2 - Starting dib engine, without blitting and (maybe) many stubs, but > with primitives and some basic stuffs, mostly from Huw's tree, some > small patches by me > 3 - Blitting, which requires both patching GDI32 again and adding the > code to DIB driver, and all stubs; all that mostly from Jesse's tree, > many patches by me > 4 - Initial text and font implementation, by me > 5 - Registry and environment variable stuffs, by me > > Most chunks need to span over more source files. > After that, I guess the code is defined enough to be opened for completion. >> >> Have you asked Alexandre on IRC what he thinks of the design? >> > No.... I'm not using IRC since ages :-) > Is this the way to ask him ?
He's usually on IRC, nickname julliard. Though, to be frank, his lack of response to the e-mails leads me to believe either: A) He doesn't like the design. B) Is really busy, and hasn't had time to look it thoroughly. C) Both. -- -Austin