working together on stdole.tlb and a end to dcom9x

Vincent Béron vberon at
Sun Nov 28 19:13:06 CST 2004

Le dim 29/08/2004 à 14:31, Filip Navara a écrit :
> Huw D M Davies wrote:
> >You're right, an MSFT stdole32 might work fine - I guess we should at
> >least try it.  So for fun I've attached the program we used to
> >generate CrossOver's stdole32.tlb (Actually you need to take the
> >generated file and wrap it up in a resource only dll, but that's a
> >detail).  Since it was designed to be compiled with MSVC, it uses the
> >L"" construct for olestrings - you can hack around this by compiling
> >with -fshort-wchar for now.
> >  
> >
> I tried to change CreateTypeLib to CreateTypeLib2 and running it with 
> Wine DLLs. It produced bunch of FIXMEs, but generated the type library 
> in the end. The result is attached. Compared to the type library 
> generated using the same executable with Windows DLL only two bytes 
> differ. Is there some type library dump program that can be used to find 
> out what are the differences or am I left alone and should I try to find 
> out the actual differences other way?

Was the resulting stdole32.tlb file (generated on Wine) a suitable
replacement for Microsoft's? IE, does InstallShield works better with
this file than without any stdole32.tlb file?


More information about the wine-devel mailing list