Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wine 2.22 Brings Improved 64-bit ARM Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by timofonic View Post

    Jokes aside: Wine project is heavily underfunded. I think it's OK to use Wine as a workaround until these apps can become native someday (even by using reverse engineering, like ScummVM does), but it has too many holes in fundamental stuff (the shell output is full of FIXMES and such every time I try to run a Windoze app in Wine). I consider Codeweavers isn't capable of make the project reach it's potential and even go beyond that. I think Wine could even evolve as a way to reverse engineer Windows drivers and software if joined to an interactive dissassembler (radare2 isn't the only option, and they also use a license to be able to make proprietary addons...).

    )
    I agree with a lot of this sentiment. It's been easier to find people willing to port Warhammer: Dark Omen to Linux as a completely reverse engineered re-implementation of the game engine. Than it has been to find Wine developers willing to fix the old DirectX 5/6 code the game used. I feel sad about the games which will never get natively ported like Emperor: Battle for Dune and the old GLide games from the Voodoo2 era, but at least the community is porting the C&C 2d/Isometrics games.

    Comment


    • #22
      In this wine version betrayer still works (CSMT give better performance)



      Comment


      • #23
        I was expecting the next release to be 3.0, but i'll take it anyway...

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by DMJC View Post

          I agree with a lot of this sentiment. It's been easier to find people willing to port Warhammer: Dark Omen to Linux as a completely reverse engineered re-implementation of the game engine. Than it has been to find Wine developers willing to fix the old DirectX 5/6 code the game used. I feel sad about the games which will never get natively ported like Emperor: Battle for Dune and the old GLide games from the Voodoo2 era, but at least the community is porting the C&C 2d/Isometrics games.
          Finally someone that agrees!

          And Wine uses C89 code? Really? :O

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by timofonic View Post
            And Wine uses C89 code? Really? :O
            Yeah, I sent a patch for annoying crash-regression in wine-staging multiple months ago, and was displeased to find it out.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Hi-Angel View Post
              Yeah, I sent a patch for annoying crash-regression in wine-staging multiple months ago, and was displeased to find it out.
              ............................................______ __........................
              ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
              .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
              .........................,/...............................................”:, ........
              .....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
              .................../.................................................. .........,}....
              ................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
              .............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
              ..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
              ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
              .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
              ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
              ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
              ...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
              ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
              ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
              .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
              ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
              .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
              ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
              ................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
              .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
              ........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
              ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by timofonic View Post

                ............................................______ __........................
                ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
                .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
                .........................,/...............................................”:, ........
                .....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
                .................../.................................................. .........,}....
                ................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
                .............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
                ..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
                ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
                .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
                ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
                ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
                ...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
                ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
                ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
                .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
                ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
                .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
                ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
                ................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
                .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
                ........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
                ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
                Well, they, like, had a vague reason, from my logs:
                Originally posted by #winehackers
                (22.07.2017 01:33:05) Hi-Angel: Just wondering, maybe it's worth raising minimal C requirements at least to C99? Because C89 doesn't even allow declaring variables in-place, which doesn't lead to a better maintainable code. I don't think there are still compilers that don't support at least C99.
                (22.07.2017 01:34:57) strfllw: "in-place"?
                (22.07.2017 01:36:11) strfllw: do you perhaps mean declarations after statements?
                (22.07.2017 01:36:29) Mark_Jansen: seems like it
                (22.07.2017 01:36:58) Hi-Angel: Yep.
                (22.07.2017 01:37:16) strfllw: I can live without those, thanks
                (22.07.2017 01:37:56) KittyCat: msvc doesn't support C99
                (22.07.2017 01:38:21) Hi-Angel: strfllw: and how do you use constants for example?
                (22.07.2017 01:38:38) Hi-Angel: Or maybe distinct indice names for different loops
                (22.07.2017 01:38:40) strfllw: carefully?
                (22.07.2017 01:39:02) Hi-Angel: You can't use constant if you assign it in the middle of a function.
                (22.07.2017 01:39:10) strfllw: if I needed a reason to use C99, I'd probably go for designated initialisers
                (22.07.2017 01:39:11) Mark_Jansen: why have a compiler solve something that you can do yourself by adding 300 lines of code each time?
                (22.07.2017 01:39:22) KittyCat: they like to say they support C99, but aside from the new functions, the actual compiler doesn't understand C99 keywords and constructs
                (22.07.2017 01:40:46) Hi-Angel: Well, there's mingw for Windows, may be drop MSVC then?
                (22.07.2017 01:41:02) nsivov: that's funny
                (22.07.2017 01:41:04) Hi-Angel: They're really old.
                (22.07.2017 01:41:09) Mark_Jansen: lol
                (22.07.2017 01:41:12) strfllw: which is to say, I'd like to be able to use C99 in Wine, but we can't
                (22.07.2017 01:41:14) Mark_Jansen: drop msvc in favor of mingw?
                (22.07.2017 01:41:18) Hi-Angel: I mean, c99 17 years old.
                (22.07.2017 01:41:20) Mark_Jansen: so, drop a compiler in favor of a toy
                (22.07.2017 01:41:30) strfllw: but of all the things, declarations after statements doesn't even make the list
                (22.07.2017 01:41:58) Hi-Angel: strfllw: why can't? Are there many users on windows, that are using MSVC?
                (22.07.2017 01:42:12) Hi-Angel: … and wine ofc
                (22.07.2017 01:43:36) Hito_ [[email protected]] entered the room.
                (22.07.2017 01:47:29) Haaninjo left the room (quit: Quit: Ex-Chat).
                (22.07.2017 01:48:18) strfllw: you know what's a genuinely useful feature for Wine? C11 UTF-16 string literals
                (22.07.2017 01:48:36) Mark_Jansen: L"string"
                (22.07.2017 01:48:50) strfllw: yeah, that doesn't work
                (22.07.2017 01:48:53) Mark_Jansen: it does
                (22.07.2017 01:48:57) Mark_Jansen: just have to fix a gcc flag
                (22.07.2017 01:49:01) Mark_Jansen: so it isnt 32 bits
                (22.07.2017 01:49:19) strfllw: ...and not link to anything
                (22.07.2017 01:49:25) Mark_Jansen: not link to host libs
                (22.07.2017 01:49:35) Mark_Jansen: with regards to wchar_t
                Afterwards the discussion went off the rails; I tried coming back to it, but still have no idea what are those mysterious users of Wine build through MSVC.

                Let me be honest, absence of in-place variable declarations and designated initializers can only result in a good code if it doesn't declare lots of new struct variables and consists purely of very tiny functions, with bodies like ≈5 lines — which hardly is possible. I gonna contribute to that project only if someone decides to pay for fixing something. Talking of which btw, their bugzilla is closed from google, so I can't even search for bounties in bugreports. That sucks, too, yeah.
                Last edited by Hi-Angel; 12-01-2017, 04:31 PM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Hi-Angel View Post
                  Well, they, like, had a vague reason, from my logs:
                  Afterwards the discussion went off the rails; I tried coming back to it, but still have no idea what are those mysterious users of Wine build through MSVC.

                  Let me be honest, absence of in-place variable declarations and designated initializers can only result in a good code if it doesn't declare lots of new struct variables and consists purely of very tiny functions, with bodies like ≈5 lines — which hardly is possible. I gonna contribute to that project only if someone decides to pay for fixing something. Talking of which btw, their bugzilla is closed from google, so I can't even search for bounties in bugreports. That sucks, too, yeah.
                  I did read them and it looked like a conversation from members of a very weird sect, really. Do they hate C++ too?

                  I suspect they use MSVC to do some kind of testing, in order to make their implementation as much Microsoft-like as possible. Mingw and other stuff to port GNU stuff to Windows and of course including the compiler have an issue in my opinion: They seem to not be as native as MSVC for different reasons. It also seems they don't output real native code for Microsoft platforms, but still use *NIX to Windoze shims.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X