d3dx implementation senseless?

Stefan Dösinger stefandoesinger at gmx.at
Mon Jan 7 06:15:18 CST 2008

Am Montag, 7. Januar 2008 07:29:48 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
> 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
> >> dll?
> >>
> >> So, I think that a definitive answer should be given very quickly.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > 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.
Just make WINE_DLL_PREATTACH return FALSE and wine will prefer the native 
version if available

More information about the wine-devel mailing list