Request for comments on patch

Ben Klein shacklein at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 19:33:10 CDT 2009


2009/6/15 Mike Kaplinskiy <mike.kaplinskiy at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Stefan Dösinger<stefandoesinger at gmx.at> wrote:
>> *) If  we create a stub / thunk driver for each known windows display driver,
>> we potentially have  all those thunks around. E.g. an app might complain that
>> it finds BOTH nv4_disp.dll AND atiumdag.dll.
>>
>> *) Providing these vendor specific DLLs can trigger other problems - for
>> example, apps might start trying to call functions in the driver, but skip
>> gracefully now. So we should see if the driver APIs are at least
>> pseudo-documented
>
> Can we form a mob after the people that do this? For the first point
> that would mean the app has hardcoded mappings since we only report
> one filename. But this situation is also possible in windows if you
> switch video cards, so it would fail on windows as well.

The point is that Wine shouldn't act as if there are (or have been)
multiple video cards for this reason - the apps could hate you for it.
As Roderick said, the correct driver name has to be selected at
runtime, and based on the features exposed by the OpenGL/GLX/driver
implementation.

> For the second point, as said previously, we can have a generic stub
> dll and a specific one. Since (as Erich notes) nvdia doesn't export
> any symbols, we can use the generic one for it. If ATI exports symbols
> we write a specialized one. And in the worst case we fail in DllMain.
> I doubt there are many apps that do this.

You make it sound easy!



More information about the wine-devel mailing list