I'm having a bitch of a time with configure on mingw. I understand not
wanting to #ifdef OSNAME in the wine source tree and how this would be a
pain if a project forked. Would you be opposed to a #ifdef statement for
mingw?
Thanks
Steven
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Trying to compile today's Wine I get errors:
freetype.c: In function `WineEngGetGlyphOutline':
freetype.c:947: `FT_Angle' undeclared (first use in
this function)
freetype.c:947: (Each undeclared identifier is
reported only once
freetype.c:947: for each function it appears in.)
freetype.c:947: parse error before `angle'
freetype.c:993: `angle' undeclared (first use in this
function)
freetype.c:1003: warning: implicit declaration of
function `FT_Vector_Rotate'
freetype.c:1059: warning: implicit declaration of
function `FT_Cos'
freetype.c:1060: warning: implicit declaration of
function `FT_Sin'
Huw,
these functions calls were introduced to the file by
your patch, applyed on Jan 29, 2002.
I believe the problems are because of differences
between freetype versions. The problem occurs on
freetype 2.0.1, but according to thread "Prob with
freetype..." is fixed after upgrading to 2.0.3.
Regards,
Andriy Palamarchuk
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
> All wine headers seem to declare function pointers like
>
> <return value> WINAPI (*<function pointer name)(<parameter list>)
>
> Visual C 5 does not like the WINAPI (eg __stdcall) outside of
> the brackets and requires:
>
> <return value> (WINAPI *<function pointer name>)(<parameter list>)
[snip]
> Maybe there is someone on this list which can give me an
> direct answer to this.
If you want to compile with Visual C++ you will have to do
something like below.
#ifdef __GNUC__
#define WINAPI_PTR * WINAPI
#else
#define WINAPI_PTR WINAPI *
#endif
And replace all WINAPI function with:
<return value> (WINAPI_PTR <function pointer name>)(<parameter list>)
Hmm. That reminds me. I experimented with this some year ago but I
have no distinct memory of asking Alexandre whether he wanted a
patch that does this for Wine. Then I forgot about it.
Alexandre:
Will you accept a patch that does this?
bison -y -v -d -t ./parser.y
conflicts: 2 shift/reduce
gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include -g -O2 -Wall
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -o y.tab.o y.tab.c
gcc: y.tab.c: No such file or directory
gcc: No input files
make: *** [y.tab.o] Error 1
I've got the -v option going but I can't get a debug output form bison
to figure out whats going wrong. Anyone got any ideas?
Thanks
Steven
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
dlls/Makefile.in refers to msvcrt20, but the directory doesn't exist.
Guess someone forgot a "cvs add".
LLaP
bero
--
This message is provided to you under the terms outlined at
http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Hi,
Like many users now,
I have this message when I launch some programs :
err:ntdll:RtlpWaitForCriticalSection section 0xXXXXXXX
"?" wait timed out, retrying (60sec) fs = XXXX
To clear the situtation : What does this message means
and what could be done to make it disappear ?
Some users have made post with these and have got no response...
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr
Hello
I happened to find wine when researching some undocumented stuff in shell32.dll
for my own shell extensions I had written. It was interesting to see how things may
be done in windows. I also identified some parts in the wine shell32 which need
more attention and plan to submit some patches concerning that after I have
familiarized myself a little more with wine.
Since I had no Linux system at my hands I tried to use the Visual C 5 compiler
on my windows system to compile the shell32 dll and found some problems
with that. Separate from some wine specific project definitions which need to
be made for Visual C to process the wine headers Iand which I probably haven't
done all properly) there was one problem with function pointer definitions.
All wine headers seem to declare function pointers like
<return value> WINAPI (*<function pointer name)(<parameter list>)
Visual C 5 does not like the WINAPI (eg __stdcall) outside of the brackets and requires:
<return value> (WINAPI *<function pointer name>)(<parameter list>)
I could also not find any comprehensible ANSI C description which would care to
explain what would be the correct way of function pointer declarations with a calling
convention identifier. I tried to figure out how this could be solved. Declaring WINAPI
to be empty and telling Visual C to use __stdcall as default gives other problems with
internal wine functions without explicit calling convention declaration and with a variable
argument list, which requires __cdecl.
The only way I could find was to adjust the function pointer definitions in the affected
headers. Of course this goes quite far and might cause problems with other compilers.
As I will soon have a new development machine on which I will install Linux alongside
of Windows I can fairly easily check if this would cause problems with gcc, but wine
seems to care for more compilers than that and I have no idea if such a change would
cause problems (it probably would anyhow :-| ).
Maybe there is someone on this list which can give me an direct answer to this.
Rolf Kalbermatter
Hiya,
Didn't see anyone mention this so...
When compiling CVS tonight...
gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include -I/usr/include/freetype2
-g -O2 -Wall -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fPIC -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT
-I/usr/X11R6/include -o freetype.o freetype.c
freetype.c: In function `WineEngGetGlyphOutline':
freetype.c:947: `FT_Angle' undeclared (first use in this function)
freetype.c:947: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
freetype.c:947: for each function it appears in.)
freetype.c:947: parse error before `angle'
freetype.c:993: `angle' undeclared (first use in this function)
freetype.c:1003: warning: implicit declaration of function
`FT_Vector_Rotate'
freetype.c:1059: warning: implicit declaration of function `FT_Cos'
freetype.c:1060: warning: implicit declaration of function `FT_Sin'
make[2]: *** [freetype.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/cvs_root/wine/dlls/gdi'
make[1]: *** [gdi/libgdi32.so] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/cvs_root/wine/dlls'
make: *** [dlls] Error 2
Compilation failed, aborting install.
Meths
----- Original Message -----
From: <lawson_whitney(a)juno.com>
To: <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl>; <galberte(a)neo.lrun.com>
Cc: <wine-patches(a)winehq.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: SetEndOfFile fix
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Rein Klazes wrote:
>
> > You still need ftruncate in case the file has to shrink. To do that
> > without ftruncate takes a lot more work then an lseek and a write.
> >
> > Rein.
> >
> Right. I meant sort of like this. Unfortunately I haven't an app that
> does this, to be sure I have it right.
>
> Changelog
> server : file.c
> Lawson Whitney <lawson_whitney(a)juno.com>
> Rein Klazes <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl>
> Guy Albertelli <galberte(a)neo.lrun.com>
> Do not rely on ftruncate to grow a file. It may refuse or fail
> to do so. (eg with vfat filesystem under Linux)
>
>
Outlook Express 5.0 is happy (relatively). Lets commit this.
Guy
> ... I feel like starting a flamewar, just to get some
> traffic on this list :)
Yes!!! Flamewar!!! No retreat!!! No surrender!!!
> Speaking of which, I figured I should rattle Alexandre's cage :)
Well, I guess he will have fun with all the outstanding patches.
I think he has never had so many. :-)
> So here I go:
>
> Wine's been around for 8 (_eight_) years (how time flies)! It is my
> understanding that we're approaching the 1.0 status. I say,
> let's change
> the versioning scheme, just to give the outside world a feeling of
> progress. Really, I think the current scheme kindda hurts us on a PR
> level.
>
> We can start with something like 0.90.0. This should give us plenty
> numbers to the upcoming 1.0, don't you think?
Unfortunetely there won't be any flamewar as far as I'm
concerned since don't care very much either way. :-)
But if anybody is intrested in my opinion anyway here goes:
I'm slightly against changing the versioning scheme before 1.0.
After 1.0 we probably want to have so sort of different versioning
especially since we might release different versions of the DLL:s
independently of each other. However I don't think there is much
use of having that pre 1.0.