I unsubscribed email feedback(a)examiner.com, since it sends out
everyone an email "thank you for your feedback".
Sorry for inconvinience... People should think more when subscribing
with such stupid autorepliers.
WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.
Hi!
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:13 AM, <jmorlan(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
> Author: jmorlan
> Date: Sun Mar 29 09:13:35 2009
> New Revision: 40280
Would you mind taking a look at a cmd.exe bug Wax found? (I can't log
in to bugzilla to file a bug report but I can quickly describe the
issue) For some reason the CreateProcess call in in telnetd that
spawns cmd.exe causes it to generate the error INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE.
This issue does not happen with ReactOS telnetd on windows if you use
Windows cmd.exe or if you use another console application on ReactOS
such as ping.exe so we have isolated it to a cmd.exe problem.
Telnetd is located in rosapps/sysutils/applications/telnetd
Thanks!
--
Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
Hi,
I searched for everywhere in the source code to see the definition of
the MMVAD struct, but it is nowhere.
So I suppose that we have something else (with different name) for
that? If so, where is it?
Thanks,
Jun
Hi.
I suggest to divide rosapps on two parts:
1) Components which are present in Windows (rosapps)
2) 3rd party components (3rdapps)
In rosapps it is necessary to place all components without which the
system can normally work (calc, hh, winhlp32, charmap, games and etc)
In 3rdapps components which are not present in Windows (downloader,
imagesoft and etc) will take places
Such placing of components will allow to reduce compilation time as you
can not compile not the modules necessary to you (rosapps and/or 3rdapps)
Please tell your opinion on my proposition.
--
WBR,
Dmitry Chapyshev
Are you all receiving this automated reply when sending mail to ros-dev ML ?
Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle
________________________________
De : feedback(a)teamexaminer.com
À : spetreolle(a)yahoo.fr
Envoyé le : Vendredi, 27 Mars 2009, 11h20mn 09s
Objet : RE: [ros-dev] Re : Where is MMVAD struct?
Thank you for your feedback. Your email will be reviewed and processed accordingly.
Sincerely,
Examiner.com
Hello everybody,
As you might have noticed, I recently did some changes to our Website stuff
and Regression Testing System.
Finally, it's time to show some results now:
== BuildBot upgrade ==
Christoph reinstalled the latest version of BuildBot on our Swedish server
today, since the previous server system was way too old for such an upgrade.
This also had the uncomfortable side-effect of the BuildBot URL changing
from http://reactos.org:8010 to http://build.reactos.org:8010, which most of
you already seem to have noticed ;-)
Sorry for not giving a note about this before.
I thought I could just finish my stuff and then write this E-Mail explaining
all changes, but as always, it took longer than expected :-/
== Crash Recovery in rosautotest and sysreg2 ==
In the recent days, I rewrote rosautotest in C++ for getting a more
maintainable code. This update also added a Crash Recovery feature.
Together with my updated version of sysreg2, we can now resume the testing
process with the next test in case a specific test made ReactOS crash.
== Web Test Interface ==
As we recently set up a new VM, which will eventually replace our current
outdated www.reactos.org server, I finally had a playground for my third
component of our testing system: The "testman" Web Interface.
It is available at http://79.99.5.181/testman/
Features include finding specific test results through a getbuilds-like
interface and comparing them.
The Comparison feature can compare up to 5 results side-by-side and show the
differences. Clicking on "Show only changed results" will only show the
lines that have differences. You can also use Drag & Drop to move the column
headers with all associated results to get the table to look like you want
it.
Clicking a test result will show details, including a log of this specific
test.
Just play around with it a bit and you should easily get to know about all
features.
Regarding Lone_Rifle's interface at http://reactos.nxserve.net: From what he
told me, this one was only meant as a decentral alternative as long as we
don't have "testman" on an official server.
I'm saying this, so nobody gets the impression that I just wanted to
extinguish his work with my implementation. If some people prefer
Lone_Rifle's version over mine, it would just need to be adjusted to the new
BuildBot URL and those people could still use it.
Comments and suggestions are welcome of course.
Not everything works perfect yet (e.g. the Debug Buildslave needs quite some
time now as all tests are run), but it should be ready for you to try now.
Best regards,
Colin
Hi,
Since today, I cannot access the old buildbot page
(http://reactos.org:8010/) anymore.
I found the new URL (http://build.reactos.org:8010) in Colin's commit
message.
Was this an intentional change?
I am asking because noone announced this change and some people might
now wonder where the buildbot page is...
Or am I the only one accessing it via my favourites? Is there even a
link from the website (I couldn't find one)?
Ah... and the old page had an icon, the new one doesn't.
Timo
PS:
The nice regtest pages at http://reactos.nxserve.net also don't work
anymore.
They were very useful and I'd like to see them up again.
So a) do we have something like that for our website (or in work)?
Or b) can this one be fixed? (I forgot who owns it.)
In a previous message you said:
>Alex Ionescu wrote:
>> This new hack directly slows down every context switch instead of every
>> page fault -- the latter is a less important perf hit.
>
>This slowdown is very small, especially when comparing with other
>"Hack of Doom".
>I just want to see, is it the only raison d'être of that old hack or not.
Could you explain the reason you add Mm Hack of Doom again if the
slowdown is very small?
Regards,
--
Matthieu Suiche
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:56 AM, <dgorbachev(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
> Author: dgorbachev
> Date: Mon Mar 23 03:56:01 2009
> New Revision: 40181
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=40181&view=rev
> Log:
> Add "REACTOS Mm Hack of Doom" again (removed in r39723). Bug #4296.
>
> Modified:
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch.S
> trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/trap.s
>
> Modified: trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch.S
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch…
> ==============================================================================
> --- trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch.S [iso-8859-1] (original)
> +++ trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/ctxswitch.S [iso-8859-1] Mon Mar 23 03:56:01 2009
> @@ -389,9 +389,6 @@
>
> /* Checking NPX, disable interrupts now */
> mov eax, [esi+KTHREAD_INITIAL_STACK]
> -
> - /* HACK */
> - mov ecx, [eax - 4]
> cli
>
> /* Get the NPX State */
>
> Modified: trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/trap.s
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/trap.s?re…
> ==============================================================================
> --- trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/trap.s [iso-8859-1] (original)
> +++ trunk/reactos/ntoskrnl/ke/i386/trap.s [iso-8859-1] Mon Mar 23 03:56:01 2009
> @@ -1924,10 +1924,14 @@
> NoFixUp:
> mov edi, cr2
>
> + /* REACTOS Mm Hack of Doom */
> + test dword ptr [ebp+KTRAP_FRAME_EFLAGS], EFLAGS_INTERRUPT_MASK
> + je HandlePf
> +
> /* Enable interrupts and check if we got here with interrupts disabled */
> sti
> - test dword ptr [ebp+KTRAP_FRAME_EFLAGS], EFLAGS_INTERRUPT_MASK
> - jz IllegalState
> + /* test dword ptr [ebp+KTRAP_FRAME_EFLAGS], EFLAGS_INTERRUPT_MASK
> + jz IllegalState */
>
> HandlePf:
> /* Send trap frame and check if this is kernel-mode or usermode */
>
>
Hi,
I am doing a project on implementing VFS. Can anyone help me as a mentor?
Since I'm more used to in Linux than in ROS code, it would be a great help
if someone can help me through. I have gone through the ntos folder and read
some documents and also the winvfs project that someone here suggested. I'm
aware this is not a prime target in the ROS team, but once I complete this,
I might be able to contribute to areas of higher priority.
Hoping for a positive reply,
Thank you.
--
Mahesh M
Happy hacking...
, ,
/ \
((__-^^-,-^^-__))
`-_---' `---_-'
`--|o` 'o|--'
\ ` /
): :(
:o_o:
"-"
What was wrong with a previous naming convention?
x0gone.c were supposed to contain implementation of functions, which
became legacy in that major version of NDIS. Now you substituted it
with x0stubs.c, which means it's going to contain stubs only. Was
that intentionally?
On Mar 21, 2009, at 12:29 AM, cgutman(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> Author: cgutman
> Date: Sat Mar 21 00:29:53 2009
> New Revision: 40142
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=40142&view=rev
> Log:
> - Reorganize NDIS code
>
> Added:
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/30stubs.c
> - copied, changed from r40140, trunk/reactos/drivers/network/
> ndis/ndis/40gone.c
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/40stubs.c
> - copied, changed from r40141, trunk/reactos/drivers/network/
> ndis/ndis/50gone.c
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/50stubs.c
> - copied, changed from r40113, trunk/reactos/drivers/network/
> ndis/ndis/stubs.c
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/misc.c (with props)
> Removed:
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/40gone.c
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/50gone.c
> trunk/reactos/drivers/network/ndis/ndis/stubs.c
Hi,
1.) Is there a reason, why some exports of advapi32 are forwarded
instead of just set to the proper function? Forwarding is more work for
the loader.
2.) kernel32 imports from itself. Which will probably lead to the same
result as bug 4292.
This is because the mingw lib imports from kernel32 and requires
kernel32 library to be added afterwards. But rbuild likes to add mingw
lib at the very end of the library list which requires adding kernel32
as a library to mingw_common to resolve imports. This should be fixed
and mingw added as the very first library.
I wonder if those 2 are even allowed on Windows, as both don't make sense.
Timo
Hi All!
Good to see it go, I had it in as a safeguard, and now we moved on to
the next phase of the rewrite!
Thanks Timo!
James
8^D
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:
> Oh, finally! ;)
>
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 7:51 AM, tkreuzer(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
>
>> Author: tkreuzer
>> Date: Fri Mar 20 07:51:26 2009
>> New Revision: 40115
>>
>> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=40115&view=rev
>> Log:
>> rename DCs pDc_Attr to pdcattr, like in gdikdx.
>> Make pdcattr alsways point to a DC_ATTR, either the user mode
>> struct or the local part. Get rid of all the If (!pdcattr) pdcattr
>> = &dc->Dc_Attr; That are not required anymore.
>
Oh, finally! ;)
On Mar 20, 2009, at 7:51 AM, tkreuzer(a)svn.reactos.org wrote:
> Author: tkreuzer
> Date: Fri Mar 20 07:51:26 2009
> New Revision: 40115
>
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=40115&view=rev
> Log:
> rename DCs pDc_Attr to pdcattr, like in gdikdx.
> Make pdcattr alsways point to a DC_ATTR, either the user mode
> struct or the local part. Get rid of all the If (!pdcattr) pdcattr
> = &dc->Dc_Attr; That are not required anymore.
Hi,
I's like to suggest a workaround to the problem that we have to deal
with both RECT and RECTL structures in win32k and as they
are incompatible need to typecast in a lot of places.
RECTL is what the DDI interface uses (almost) exclusively. While the
NtGdi Interface and a lot of User structures also use RECT.
Both structures are equal, but not compatible when it comes to assigning
one to another, So we need to do all these nasty typecasts.
My suggestion is adding some defines after the inclusion of windef.h:
#define RECT RECTL
#define PRECT PRECTL
#define LPRECT LPRECTL
#define LPCRECT LPCRECTL
same for POINT and POINTL
I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
Thanks,
Timo
Looking at the patch only this looks wrong to me.
Assuming this is radio button it should use the marlett font.
Ged.
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-diffs-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-diffs-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of mkupfer(a)svn.reactos.org
Sent: 04 March 2009 16:30
To: ros-diffs(a)reactos.org
Subject: [ros-diffs] [mkupfer] 39871: Sascha Clausen <r4v3r AT hotmail DOT de> - Draw bullet for menu radio group. - See issue #4193 for details.
Author: mkupfer
Date: Wed Mar 4 19:29:57 2009
New Revision: 39871
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=39871&view=rev
Log:
Sascha Clausen <r4v3r AT hotmail DOT de>
- Draw bullet for menu radio group.
- See issue #4193 for details.
Modified:
trunk/reactos/dll/win32/user32/windows/draw.c
Modified: trunk/reactos/dll/win32/user32/windows/draw.c
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/dll/win32/user32/windows/d…
==============================================================================
--- trunk/reactos/dll/win32/user32/windows/draw.c [iso-8859-1] (original)
+++ trunk/reactos/dll/win32/user32/windows/draw.c [iso-8859-1] Wed Mar 4 19:29:57 2009
@@ -1276,11 +1276,12 @@
yc = myr.top + SmallDiam - SmallDiam/2;
i = 234*SmallDiam/750;
i = i < 1 ? 1 : i;
- myr.left = xc - i+i/2;
+ myr.left = xc - i/2;
myr.right = xc + i/2;
- myr.top = yc - i+i/2;
+ myr.top = yc - i/2;
myr.bottom = yc + i/2;
- Pie(dc, myr.left, myr.top, myr.right, myr.bottom, xe, ye, xe, ye);
+ // if the start and the end point are equal, Pie() only draws a single line, so start one pixel lower
+ Pie(dc, myr.left, myr.top, myr.right, myr.bottom, xe, ye+1, xe, ye);
break;
case DFCS_MENUCHECK:
It's not UserDrawIconEx which is hacky, it's just the code you added for detecting alpha pixels
Ged.
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-diffs-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-diffs-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of mkupfer(a)svn.reactos.org
Sent: 13 March 2009 00:21
To: ros-diffs(a)reactos.org
Subject: [ros-diffs] [mkupfer] 39997: - Add a hackfix comment for issue #4243 due to several requests.
Author: mkupfer
Date: Fri Mar 13 03:20:48 2009
New Revision: 39997
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=39997&view=rev
Log:
- Add a hackfix comment for issue #4243 due to several requests.
Modified:
trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/win32k/ntuser/cursoricon.c
Modified: trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/win32k/ntuser/cursoricon.c
URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/win32k/nt…
==============================================================================
--- trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/win32k/ntuser/cursoricon.c [iso-8859-1] (original)
+++ trunk/reactos/subsystems/win32/win32k/ntuser/cursoricon.c [iso-8859-1] Fri Mar 13 03:20:48 2009
@@ -1389,6 +1389,7 @@
}
+/* FIXME: ReactOS specific hack */
BOOL
UserDrawIconEx(
HDC hDc,
The only things I have habitually used in rosapps are ctm, ncftp, and
download. I'd hate to see these go away. OTOH, there are quite a few
things that l would consider "tests" in rosapps that could be moved. I
think the argument that rosapps to long to build is crap. If you want to
reduce the build time, ditch explorer.
On Mar 12, 2009 11:02 AM, "Ged" <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I prefer this idea.
I'd like to see rosapps removed completely and have all non essential stuff
in trunk built via an rbuild variable (turned off by default)
Ged.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:
ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org] ...
Behalf Of Thomas Bluemel Sent: 12 March 2009 14:17 To: ReactOS Development
List Subject: Re: [ros-de...
Hi Guys,
One of the big issues I'm seeing with regards to ReactOS is the lack
of overall structure. Currently ReactOS is loosely compatible with
NT, 2000, XP, and even Vista. However, I believe that in order to
achieve true stability and compatibility some changes should be
implemented. I'm offering my opinion as a suggestion of how to
structure things. While I believe that everyone should be allowed to
have fun developing a great project, I believe that we can still do
this, while maintaining a little more structure. Please feel free to
comment on this email.
First Issue: Moving Target
Every since I first started watching ReactOS in 2001, I've noticed
that ROS is suffering from moving target syndrome. Microsoft
continually releases new versions of Windows each year, and ROS
struggles to keep up. driver compatibility, app compatibility, etc.
are all affected by this. Development is all over the place. If
someone knows how to implement a vista API call, they do it. XP?
Same, etc. The problem is this can cause compatibility issues with
drivers and apps that do DLL hooking, as well as other oddball
scenarios. In order to have truely 100% compatibility, we need to
find a way to deal with this type of development.
I propose picking a single target, Either Windows XP or Windows 2003,
to serve as the trunk (I currently recommend Windows XP since it is
compatible with nearly everything out there.) All core development
will be based around this. Our releases will be based around this.
Branches will be created for Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and
Windows Vista specific code. Any platform specific code will go into
this branch. Any code that is no longer valid will be removed from
this branch. This allows multiple versions of Windows to be targetted
at the same time.
The trunk will continue on it's path until a) It is 90-100%
compatible with most apps/drivers or b) XP/2003 become so old and out
of date they aren't used by anyone anymore, similar to the way
98/NT4/2000 are now. If either of those scenarios happen, we vote to
switch to a different branch. We should avoid switching to the most
cutting edge version of windows, however, and instead focus on the
most widely used version at the time.
Second Issue: ROS Hacks
I've noticed that a lot of times, people implement app specific hacks
in ROS, or worse, they implement ROS specific hacks in different apps.
Both of these are very bad practices. Instead of doing either of
these, I'd recommend discussing the problems you find with the other
developers over the mailing list. For instance, if app XYZ is
working, rather than submitting a hackish patch to get it to work,
find the root cause of the issue, and solve it there or ask for help
to solve it.
Third Issue: Unit Tests
While there are winetests as well as other small tests, ReactOS (That
i know of, unless it's in a seperate repo) does not have an official
testing framework. Each developer here should take some time out and
write a test for every api currently supported by windows, make it
pass on Windows, and then commit it to SVN. If we all write tests,
This will help identify bugs in ROS vs Windows. Low level tests are
ESPECIALLY needed. Our driver compatibility currently sucks, and it's
getting worse every day. Unit testing for driver specific APIs and
the HAL would help improve ROS dramatically.
Final Issue: Stop mixing user and kernel mode code.
On occasion i see developers use ReactOS specific kernel mode code in
userland. This process should be avoided. All ROS apps should work
on both Windows and ROS, and should not contain any ROS specific
checks,etc. This goes back to the second issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses to my opinion, and I hope
that we can work on getting at least some of these opinions
implemented so that we may build a truly great Microsoft Windows
Compatible Alternative!
Thanks,
Richard Campbell
Restructuring ReactOS
Hi Guys,
One of the big issues I'm seeing with regards to ReactOS is the lack
of overall structure. Currently ReactOS is loosely compatible with
NT, 2000, XP, and even Vista. However, I believe that in order to
achieve true stability and compatibility some changes should be
implemented. I'm offering my opinion as a suggestion of how to
structure things. While I believe that everyone should be allowed to
have fun developing a great project, I believe that we can still do
this, while maintaining a little more structure. Please feel free to
comment on this email.
First Issue: Moving Target
Every since I first started watching ReactOS in 2001, I've noticed
that ROS is suffering from moving target syndrome. Microsoft
continually releases new versions of Windows each year, and ROS
struggles to keep up. driver compatibility, app compatibility, etc.
are all affected by this. Development is all over the place. If
someone knows how to implement a vista API call, they do it. XP?
Same, etc. The problem is this can cause compatibility issues with
drivers and apps that do DLL hooking, as well as other oddball
scenarios. In order to have truely 100% compatibility, we need to
find a way to deal with this type of development.
I propose picking a single target, Either Windows XP or Windows 2003,
to serve as the trunk (I currently recommend Windows XP since it is
compatible with nearly everything out there.) All core development
will be based around this. Our releases will be based around this.
Branches will be created for Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and
Windows Vista specific code. Any platform specific code will go into
this branch. Any code that is no longer valid will be removed from
this branch. This allows multiple versions of Windows to be targetted
at the same time.
The trunk will continue on it's path until a) It is 90-100%
compatible with most apps/drivers or b) XP/2003 become so old and out
of date they aren't used by anyone anymore, similar to the way
98/NT4/2000 are now. If either of those scenarios happen, we vote to
switch to a different branch. We should avoid switching to the most
cutting edge version of windows, however, and instead focus on the
most widely used version at the time.
Second Issue: ROS Hacks
I've noticed that a lot of times, people implement app specific hacks
in ROS, or worse, they implement ROS specific hacks in different apps.
Both of these are very bad practices. Instead of doing either of
these, I'd recommend discussing the problems you find with the other
developers over the mailing list. For instance, if app XYZ is
working, rather than submitting a hackish patch to get it to work,
find the root cause of the issue, and solve it there or ask for help
to solve it.
Third Issue: Unit Tests
While there are winetests as well as other small tests, ReactOS (That
i know of, unless it's in a seperate repo) does not have an official
testing framework. Each developer here should take some time out and
write a test for every api currently supported by windows, make it
pass on Windows, and then commit it to SVN. If we all write tests,
This will help identify bugs in ROS vs Windows. Low level tests are
ESPECIALLY needed. Our driver compatibility currently sucks, and it's
getting worse every day. Unit testing for driver specific APIs and
the HAL would help improve ROS dramatically.
Final Issue: Stop mixing user and kernel mode code.
On occasion i see developers use ReactOS specific kernel mode code in
userland. This process should be avoided. All ROS apps should work
on both Windows and ROS, and should not contain any ROS specific
checks,etc. This goes back to the second issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses to my opinion, and I hope
that we can work on getting at least some of these opinions
implemented so that we may build a truly great Microsoft Windows
Compatible Alternative!
Thanks,
Richard Campbell