Fwd: Re: [putty]Winelib support + patch

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at rogers.com
Mon Nov 25 16:11:46 CST 2002

This is a very valid question.

Alexandre, do we support generating regular executables
for the apps we don't necessarily need the wrapper stuff
for initialization purposes?

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: [putty]Winelib support + patch
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:17:18 +0000
From: Simon Tatham <anakin at pobox.com>
To: dpaun at rogers.com
Cc: putty at projects.tartarus.org

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> wrote:
> FYI: the way it works is that instead of compiling the app as an
>      executable, we generate a .so that's loaded by wine. Now,
>      wine is simply a one page program that loads the libraries
>      that the program expects (like kernel, gdi, user), and then
>      loads the program itself. This is required by some apps which
>      have C++ static initializers, which expect to be able to call
>      Win32 functions, and they do so before we get a chance to
>      initialize them, if we were to have the app load the libs.

OK, I've now read the docs and I understand this a bit better now.
My next awkward question is: I can see that this is necessary for
some apps which have C++ static initialisers, or which load
libraries that have C++ static initialisers, but why does that mean
it's necessary for PuTTY? PuTTY contains no C++, and as far as I
know it uses no libraries _except_ standard Win32 API ones. Surely
it should be possible _for these particular applications_ to compile
them as standalone binaries? Or does Winelib currently only support
doing things the inconvenient way?

Simon Tatham         "The distinction between the enlightened and the
<anakin at pobox.com>    terminally confused is only apparent to the latter."



More information about the wine-devel mailing list