pouech-eric at wanadoo.fr
Tue Jun 17 12:41:25 CDT 2003
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Eric Pouech <pouech-eric at wanadoo.fr> writes:
>>- this patch partially implements this scheme. It's partial because
>>console handles are still handled by wineserver. Their value is
>>however obfuscated so that we can track their real usage.
> IMO you shouldn't need to have any obfuscation code in the server at
> all. If you need that, something is wrong with the design.
I don't need the obfuscation at all (just setting the two lower bits of
the handle to 1). I used obfuscation to make it easier to track bugs.
I'll resubmit without the obfuscation macros.
>>- next step would mean implementing the console handle management
>>outside of wineserver (likely in wineconsole)
> I'm not convinced we really need that; IMO it's OK to keep them in the
> server, as long as we can identify them as console handles from the
I was what I really wanted to move to wineconsole was the content of
screen buffers (which are copied twice currently and which I find rather
bad). Of course, we could split handle management and object management
in two different locations (wineserver resp. wineconsole), but this will
complicate things IMO
and as any performance enhancement, it doesn't need to be done
immediately (there are some other items to focus on)
More information about the wine-devel