Is there any up-to-date information on using the Wine debugger following the
Great DLL Separation?
I have a commercial application which crashes in X11DRV_BitBlt during startup,
and I'd like to step through the failing code to find the problem. However I
can't set a breakpoint at X11DRV_BitBlt,
At 09:23 AM 1/14/01 +, you wrote:
Is there any up-to-date information on using the Wine debugger following the
Great DLL Separation?
I have a commercial application which crashes in X11DRV_BitBlt during startup,
and I'd like to step through the failing code to find the problem. However I
davep writes:
Is there any up-to-date information on using the Wine debugger following the
Great DLL Separation?
I have a commercial application which crashes in X11DRV_BitBlt
during startup, and I'd like to step through the failing code to find
the problem. However I can't set a
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, you wrote:
At 09:23 AM 1/14/01 +, you wrote:
I have a commercial application which crashes in X11DRV_BitBlt during startup,
and I'd like to step through the failing code to find the problem. However I
can't set a breakpoint at X11DRV_BitBlt, I suspect because the .so
I even specifically hand deleted all the object files containing
references to that symbol.
References aren't the problem. That symbol should be _defined_ in
libntdll.so. At least it is in Wine-20010112, and I haven't seen any
cvs activity since. Could you have gotten only half of the
Nathan Neulinger wrote:
The CVS/Entries file for ntdll.spec had a /T1.35 at the end of it and
was never getting anything newer than that. That was the ONLY one of
those weird Entries entries in the whole project. I dumped the ntdll dir
and re-checked it out, and the spec file is now
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Nathan Neulinger wrote:
The CVS/Entries file for ntdll.spec had a /T1.35 at the end of it and
was never getting anything newer than that. That was the ONLY one of
those weird Entries entries in the whole project. I dumped the ntdll dir
and re-checked it out, and
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
typedef struct tagGDIOBJHDR
{
HANDLE16hNext;
WORDwMagic;
DWORD dwCount;
+HDC refcount;
} GDIOBJHDR;
doh... wouldn't it be better if refcount were an int ?
(Franois shall not like it when -DSTRICT is turned on ;-)
A+
--
At 11:00 PM 1/14/01 +0800, you (Dmitry Timoshkov) wrote:
snip
+++ wine/controls/scroll.c Sun Jan 14 22:16:58 2001
@@ -810,7 +810,6 @@
if (!wndPtr || !infoPtr ||
((nBar == SB_VERT) !(wndPtr-dwStyle WS_VSCROLL)) ||
((nBar == SB_HORZ) !(wndPtr-dwStyle WS_HSCROLL)))
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Hallo,
as reported yesterday, some application depended on DeleteObject
failing as long as the Object is stillselected into some DC. Andi also
noted the need for such a check some time ago. This patch adds an
entry "refcount" in
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:58:37PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Hello,
Removing the code to remove the recursion flag in NE_DllProcessAttach()
makes the program load instantly.
This is not a good solution, of course ;-)
Something tells me that our code is totally wrong.
Or is it
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:48:21PM -0600, Andreas Mohr wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Hallo,
as reported yesterday, some application depended on DeleteObject
failing as long as the Object is stillselected into some DC. Andi also
noted the need for
"gerard patel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While your patch makes the scrolling behaviour of the edit control better,
are you sure you could not get the same effect without this change ?
Yes, all works fine with this line in place. Alexandre, please ignore this
one-liner change for scroll.c. Or
At 07:55 AM 1/15/01 +0800, you wrote:
Yes, all works fine with this line in place. Alexandre, please ignore this
one-liner change for scroll.c. Or should I resend the whole patch?
Wait, there is at least another problem with this patch.
It's about the access to the edit's parent control. Try
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've started working on some preliminary patches to 20001222 to get
wine to run on BeOS. I'm interested to see if theres a user base
subscribed here and if its worth my time. so far I've got a few
basic x functions mapped around to Be functions
"gerard patel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait, there is at least another problem with this patch.
It's about the access to the edit's parent control. Try this
with your patch : use any 32 bit program (I tested with
the Word 97 viewer, this happens also with Forte Free
Agent32) to open a
I believe they hit a brick wall at some point: Windows application
are supposed to be loaded between 0-2GB but on BeOS this is the
reserved
kernel space. And unfortunately its seemed many Windows applications
are
not relocatable. I don't know if they found a solution to that.
Otherwise it
17 matches
Mail list logo
