something I intend working on that will help make wine "more complete"

[Vincent Béron]

Le dim 20/07/2003 à 14:47, Francois Gouget a écrit :
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 
> > Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> writes:
> >
> > > IMHO the more complete our spec files the better. Even if we just add
> > > stubs.
> >
> > In many cases apps will check for a function existence and call it if
> > it exists, so adding a stub can actually break things compared to not
> > having the function at all. If you want to add all these stubs then
> > I'd suggest commenting them out until they either get implemented, or
> > we find an app that really needs the entry point.
> 
> We already have a lot of stubs in the spec files. Does it mean we should
> comment them out? Of course, that too could break applications.

I don't see how it could break an application to remove it (comment it
out). If it's only a stub in the spec file, it's calling address is
0xdeadbeef, and any call to it will crash the app. If the app doesn't
crash with the stub in, it means it doesn't use it at all.

> 
> IMHO we should add all the stubs we want and comment out only those that
> are confirmed to cause an application to crash. And preferably after
> trying to implement the stub which is of course the best solution.

The preferable solution is to not have any stub left, either in the spec
file or an actual useful implementation.

Short from that, limit application crashing because of spec stubs. But
then we'll never (easily) know which applications try to use those
stubs, and there'll be less pressure to implement them.

Would we need 2 kind of Wine releases, one with spec stubs (to find out
what could be interesting to implement) and one without any (to allow a
maximum of apps to run)?

Vincent