On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:33:58PM +0100, Griffiths, Jonathon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working away on CRTLL with good progress (about 50 functions so far). I
> have some questions though:
cool !
> I am guessing that winelib may be more relaxed about arguments etc than an
> lcc/bcc/VC++ compiled .exe.
> Should I also compile my test program under windows and try running it with
> both libraries?
Hmm, no idea.
> -Locking -at some point I will need to add locking code for MT safety. Are
> there any issues (performance?) I need to be aware of using the win32
> locking functions in the dll?
Yes. They aren't implemented at all ;-)
I just talked to Alexandre about that topic today, and he told me that the
Corel tree has locking implemented.
Porting isn't merely a cut&paste job, though (wineserver arguments slightly
changed).
> -MS docs state that crtdll is not very threadsafe, however I cant see any
> reason why wines shouldnt be. I don't think any apps depend on non
> threadsafe behaviour since by definition it is unpredictable. So I think it
> may be worthwhile to make it MT safe. This would mean a large part of the
> code could be shared with msvcrt.dll (way in the future). Also, under unix I
> would expect more processes to be running so potentially it is more
> important to be safe. Does this make sense?
Ermm, honestly, why shouldn't it make sense ? ;-))
> -Wines "process.h" will conflict with the crt "process.h". Is it desirable
> to have crt headers in the wine include dir, or should they be in
> include/crt? (note I wont be writing headers for some time).
Hmm.
If "process.h" is a widely used Windows CRTDLL include file, then we'll
have to deal with renaming our process.h...
> Ill send a patch for the changes at the end of the week. This will include
> any functions that dont make the code less MT safe. Then it'll be a while
> before I update while I try to make sense of the file handling and MT code
> :-)
Many thanks for that !
> This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
Can't you tell your employer to turn this "feature" off ?
I find it quite annoying (after all we're on a mailing list here).
This is a full 16 lines of garbage after all !
They should be able to compress this into 3 lines stating that certain
restrictions apply to that mail sent (mentioning the most important things),
and that you should visit URL foobar for more information.
If they can't do that, then they are quite incapable or ignorant IMHO.
(this is just my personal opinion, not that of my employer, my family,
my friends, people whom I'm good friends with, people I met, ... - you
got the picture)
Andreas Mohr
