"Jaco Greeff" <jaco(a)puxedo.org> writes:
> I'm not sure if I should send the whole patch or just do increments for the
> new stuff. At this point it is everything, including cleanups of the test
> case and use of correct WideCharToMultiByte as suggested by Dimitri. In
> additions the configure.ac patch for the dlls/msvcrt/tests/Makefile.in is added.
>
> As always, comments are very welcome to get this thing bedded down finally.
- you can't use the libc printf to print unicode chars, the format is
not the same
- WideCharToMultiByte can output several characters for a single
unicode char, you need to take that into account for buffer sizes
- you cannot cast a WCHAR* into a CHAR* to convert the format to ASCII
- there's no point in using strncat if you don't pass it the real size
of the buffer
- please don't copy code from MSDN, it is copyrighted by Microsoft.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.com
> > Why not, instead of complaining to people who doesn't
> > (or only partly) listens, write some sort of mail "filter"
> > the reformats the mail to one or more mail of a more
> > appropriate format. Inline attachments and that sort of things...
>
> Oh, come on man, this _is_ silly. You are the only one sending
> multiple patches per email, for crying out loud! :)
Perhaps. Haven't checked.
Anyway, I can't inline my patches the because Microsoft Outlook wraps
the lines and I sure a lot of other people that use attachments have
similar problems.
So an attachment inliner might be useful nether the less...
Folks,
After my latest X-series patches (currently at X6), I am aware
of the following listview bugs:
Yes, you read correctly: NONE. :)
So I ask you for one of two things:
-- bug reports
or
-- success stories
Otherwise, I'm gonna declare listview the coolest, nicest,
most huggable piece of code out there <g>.
--
Dimi.
Hi,
I'm using WinMX (www.winmx.com) rather frequently, currently version
3.30. Some two weeks ago, Wine HEAD displayed the ListView components
from the search and transfer tabs perfectly, now the refresh/redrawing
is messed up.
The application documented the changes ListView has undergone in the
recent months quite well, though (I'm updating Wine from CVS almost
every day). Congratulations for implementing that rather complex control
(almost) perfectly!
Take care,
-Maik
o I don't yet know how to properly raise and catch exceptions in
wine. I see some examples, but I don't see any of try/finally,
of which I am a big fan and would probably like to use.
Is there a guide somewhere on how to do these things?
o If we want MIDL generated code to compile in winelib, we are
going to have to implement the RpcTryExcept and RpcTryFinally
macros. I think I heard somewhere that, these are somewhat
mysterious macros, i.e., their implementation is based on compiler
magic instead of normal header files... how on earth shall we deal
with that? I tried grepping the psdk header files and they map to
__try, __except, __finally, and so on.... does wine have those?
Thanks again for any assistance,
--
gmt
"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people"
--President Bill Clinton, MTV interview, 1993
> On October 29, 2002 09:32 am, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > *** winapi_check
> >
> > * tools/winapi/win16.api,
> > tools/winapi/win32.api:
> > API file update.
> >
> > *** winapi_checked
>
> Patrik, please send different patches in different emails.
I try to do that more and more.
However in this case there are some logical relation between the patches.
Every issue winapi_check reports results in either a patch
to winapi_check (winapi_check.diff) or a patch to some
source file (winapi_checked.diff).
So if you wish to find any possible misstake I might have done
your really should read both.
OK, this time they might be not so useful to read both since they
are almost 100% percent independant but that is not always
when I do the winapi_check update.
> See past discussions for rationale.
I remember. :-)
Speaking of which:
Why not, instead of complaining to people who doesn't
(or only partly) listens, write some sort of mail "filter"
the reformats the mail to one or more mail of a more
appropriate format. Inline attachments and that sort of things...
Then we could have a wine-patches-filtered mailing list
for people that like the patches in a specific format.
"György 'Nog' Jeney" <nog(a)sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> ChangeLog:
> * dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h
> * dlls/shell32/shell.c
> * dlls/shell32/shellreg.c
> * dlls/shell32/Makefile.in
> * dlls/shell32/shlexec.c
> Seperate out 16-bit functions into seperate file.
I have applied the registry stuff, but not ShellExecute16; this one
will be need to be split properly so that the 32-bit version doesn't
contain 16-bit stuff.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.com
On October 29, 2002 09:32 am, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> *** winapi_check
>
> * tools/winapi/win16.api,
> tools/winapi/win32.api:
> API file update.
>
> *** winapi_checked
Patrik, please send different patches in different emails.
See past discussions for rationale.
--
Dimi.
> Perhaps someone could check if SOCKET is really a 32bit type on 64bit
> Windows.
No it isn't.
>From the latest SDK:
typedef UINT_PTR SOCKET;
A SOCKET is a pointer disguised as an integer
and thus 64-bit on 64-bit platforms.
> --- Greg Turner <gmturner007(a)ameritech.net> wrote:
> Beware of this one, It's long, and I've spliced
> together at least two
> (three?) posts, and probably quoted things
> out-of-order...
First off, everything seems in order to me... but
thats just me...
[-snip-]
> to work, and may not get right? Why make getting
>
> it right harder by
>
> adding a lot of complexity, instead of adding
>
> infrastructure?
>
> good point, that seems like the logical way to
> proceed.
I totally agree here, we should always implement
things and get them working properly before we get
them working fast, or else we become like the evil
empire ;)
> Also: we could, indeed, implement wine-rpcss as you
> mention. Since it's
> not properly a "subsystem" in the MS sense of the
> term, maybe it's
> called "wine-epmap" but that's just semantics...
> what you describe is
> totally doable, and we could convert from some
> low-level kludgy
> implementation to an RPC-based implementation once
> the necessary
> marshalling was in place... I'll give this serious
> thought.
ok well if it is doable, i believe we should do it,
why focus on the stuff that is _truely_ hard and that
we may possibly not know jack shit about when we can
get the _easier_ (not necessarily easy) stuff out of
the way first, that will lead to a more solid codebase
with which to work with.
> Back to Ove:
[snip]
> heh, I know how that goes. Your insights, alone,
> are helpful and
> appreciated; get well, and we will collaborate on
> this when you have
> the time to devote to it.
yes please, do get better soon, i may be coming down
with something myself, my friend/roommate's ex may be
the one that gave it to me too :( she is in the
hospital now with an abcess on her tonsils, and i may
have (somehow) gotten something from it, as I now
have
a sore throat...
-Dustin
P.S. nice quote Greg ;)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/