Originally posted by timofonic
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wine 2.22 Brings Improved 64-bit ARM Support
Collapse
X
-
-
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.
And Wine uses C89 code? Really? :O
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hi-Angel View PostYeah, I sent a patch for annoying crash-regression in wine-staging multiple months ago, and was displeased to find it out.
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:, ........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
Comment
-
Originally posted by timofonic View Post
............................................______ __........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:, ........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
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
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; 01 December 2017, 04:31 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hi-Angel View PostWell, 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 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
Comment