d3dx implementation senseless?
maarten at codeweavers.com
Mon Jan 7 00:29:48 CST 2008
tony.wasserka at freenet.de schreef:
>> Since everybody agrees that we need a built-in d3dx9, we could begin to implement it.
>> In the last talk about it, no plan was found to implement it: does one create a wined3dx or implement on the top of the last d3dx9
>> So, I think that a definitive answer should be given very quickly.
> As far as I read, we decided to create the dlls/d3dx9_** directories, use the latest one for all the code
> and forward all calls from older dlls to this one. However, I don't think that it is a problem if a dll contains
> more functions than the native dll, so we could also just use 12 (sth. around that) copies of the same dll.
> And about starting development: I have already began to implement the D3DXRenderToSurface interface,
> but I'm new to COM programming so the progress is quite slow, so I'd recommend someone other to do the
> base of the dll. A suggestion I'd like to do is a message that Wine should print out when a program wants to
> use the d3dx9 dll, sth. like:
> MESSAGE("The application you want to run makes use of the D3DX9 library!n");
> MESSAGE("tIts implementation under Wine is very young and far away from complete.n");
> MESSAGE("tYou may be better off using a native d3dx9_24.dll file.n");
Just copy the DllMain from sfc/sfc_main.c for example.
More information about the wine-devel