SOC Direct3D - Implement missing D3D9_xx DLLs?

tony.wasserka at tony.wasserka at
Tue Apr 1 13:31:45 CDT 2008

>  Can someone confirm this to be already finished (and then remove this item from
>  the wiki?) If it isn't finished yet, what IS missing then?
Nearly everything is missing. It's just the forwarding and some stubs that have been defined, yet,
and the D3DXRenderToSurface implementation I submitted recently was coded
with d3d9 traces, which was something AJ didn't like for reimplementing d3dx9.
That means someone other needs to take care of that interface, but that's OT for this discussion.

> D3D10_xx DLLs seem to be currently missing (I know we don't have any d3d 10
> implementation yet in wine) and it probably isn't a SOC project, but would
> completely stubbed D3D10_xx DLLs (patches) be accepted if I submit them to the
> patch mailinglist or not?
I personally don't think it makes very much sense to stub a big library like d3dx10 without
being able to really implement it (as we'd need d3d10 for this first). You could ask AJ
for this on #winehackers, but I guess he'll be the same opinion.
However, you can of course stub the d3dx10 dlls on your local tree and submit them when
our d3d10 implementation is ready.

> Ok, then the SOC text on the wiki for this item is slightly
> "misleading" / outdated.
I have updated the GSoC and D3DX wiki sites, so that one
gets a very quick overview of how "far" we are with implementing it, yet.

Best regards

More information about the wine-devel mailing list