Ros-dev

ros-dev@reactos.org

5789 discussions

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jimtabor] 37952: - Add CP_UNIXCP for CP_ACP, this will help cross tests.

by Steven Edwards

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM, <jimtabor(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote: > Author: jimtabor > Date: Mon Dec 8 23:58:23 2008 > New Revision: 37952 > > URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=37952&view=rev > Log: > - Add CP_UNIXCP for CP_ACP, this will help cross tests. > > Added: > trunk/reactos/include/reactos/wine/winnls.h (with props) > +#ifndef __WINE_WINNLS_H > +#define __WINE_WINNLS_H > + > +#define CP_UNIXCP CP_ACP Rather than keep the include_next brokeness, perhaps we should add the define to wine/port.h and include that in any offending source file. -- 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

16 years, 5 months

compatibility vs. correctness

by Matthias Kupfer

Hi folks, yesterday a user shows me a program what is working properly under windows, but not working under reactos. It was an open source program and it was easy to figure out the problem. It was an invalid win-api-call (wrong parameter value). Due to this situation I would like to ask one question. How compatible reactos should be? Even fault compatible? Matthias -- Matthias Kupfer Telefon +49 (0) 371 236 46 52 Wilhelm-Firl-Straße 21 Mobil +49 (0) 160 859 43 54 09122 Chemnitz

16 years, 5 months

compatibility vs. correctness

by Dmitry Gorbachev

I believe that people wish "perfect world" API as an optional feature, not that they really want to broke compatibility.

16 years, 5 months

compatibility vs. correctness

by Dmitry Gorbachev

Steven Edwards wrote: > We discussed something like this years ago. It would be nice if every sort > of legacy API that has any sort of hacks for brokeness as part of its > implementation, could be isolated and a simple recompile with something > like a #define NO_LEGACY_WIN32 so you could recompile without the hacks. > Not really that useful for the real world as you need the backward > compatibility but it is a nice idea for embedded or non-normal windows > targets like ARM. I think this is like compiler warnings. Some checks are disabled by default as they would cause more harm than good. But there is an option to enable them. It will help to catch bugs in software.

16 years, 5 months

Please dont break functionality due to a compiler problem, just fix it.

by Dmitry Gorbachev

>> It was already broken in r37496. > Gdi is right Win32k is wrong. I mean that GCC (by default) silently discards code like if (i < 0) { ... } where i is unsigned. So there was a bug in GDI...

16 years, 5 months

Please dont break functionality due to a compiler problem, just fix it.

by Dmitry Gorbachev

It was already broken in r37496.

16 years, 5 months

[ros-diffs] [ekohl] 37891: Replace call to ExtractIconExW (shell32.dll) by a call to PrivateExtractIconExw (user32.dll) and remove shell32.dll from the list of linked libraries because shell32.dll requires a valid user account upon initialization. Pl

by James Tabor

Eric Kohl is an Ace Programmer! Thanks Eric! James

16 years, 5 months

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [dchapyshev] 37876: - Implement SetupInstallFileA/W - Stub implement SetupPromptForDiskA/W All from Wine.

by teknopup

16 years, 5 months

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [dchapyshev] 37876: - Implement SetupInstallFileA/W - Stub implement SetupPromptForDiskA/W All from Wine.

by Ged

dchapyshev(a)svn.reactos.org wrote: > + if (!(inf_source = HeapAlloc( GetProcessHeap(), 0, len * sizeof(WCHAR) ))) > + { > + SetLastError( ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY ); > + return FALSE; > + } > + if (!SetupGetStringFieldW( inf_context, 1, inf_source, len, NULL )) return FALSE; > + source = inf_source; There's a memory leak here. It's best to read Wine code when throughly, they have bugs too ;) Ged.

16 years, 5 months

ddk header cleanup

by Timo Kreuzer

Now that Stefan has cleaned up some stuff in the ddk headers, maybe we should think of some additional design fixes here. We currently have ntddk.h include "per version" headers: winxp.h, win2k.h, winnt4.h. These contain very few stuff. My suggestion is to merge them into winddk.h. We could also merge winddk.h and ntddk.h It might make sense to split wdm.h and ntddk.h into architecture specific files Layout suggestion: - ntddk.h: includes wdm.h and contains arch-independent definitions currently in winddk.h/win2k.h/winnt4.h - wdm.h: includes arch-dependent headers, contains arch-independend wdm definitions - ddk_x86.h / ddk_x64.h, ddk_arm.h, ddk_ppc.h / ddk_mips.h: arch-dependent definitions for both wdm.h and ntddk.h definitions (#ifdef _NTDDK_ ...) Comments appreciated. Timo

16 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev