[PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-09-03 Thread Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle
Hi, Octavian Voicu wrote: >> b) Sysinfo cdaudio quantity open The latest patches I've now submitted show how to modify parameters in the parser. The key is to do it after the parsing. > I'll focus on getting basic 64 bit support working first, >while also looking at the big picture when possible.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Octavian Voicu
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:36 PM, wrote: > Octavian Voicu wrote: >>> so binary compatibility in RC files is required >>We don't have this right now. Native winmm.dll uses integer resource >>ids (id 200 for core commands, [...]) >>Wine currently uses string ids > Could you please elaborate on that?

[PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle
Hi, Octavian Voicu wrote: >> so binary compatibility in RC files is required >We don't have this right now. Native winmm.dll uses integer resource >ids (id 200 for core commands, [...]) >Wine currently uses string ids Could you please elaborate on that? I wasn't aware of an incompatibility. >> I

Re: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Octavian Voicu
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Eric Pouech wrote: > 2010/8/27 Octavian Voicu octavian.vo...@gmail.com >> I didn't think it was necessary to test on native systems. The command >> parsing looks like internal winmm stuff, which makes no difference to >> the exported interfaces, as long as the comm

Fwd: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle
Octavian, >I just looked in mmddk.h and they have this: >#define MCI_INTEGER64 13 It's good you found out about MCI_INTEGER64. Yet it's completely crazy because googling it yields 6 hits in total, all about Wine bug 22146. Bing shows nothing at all. How can such a name be that invisible? >So, d

Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Alexandre Julliard
Octavian Voicu writes: > The reason for which I opted for a BYTE* is so that I can use sizeof() > to increment the pointer correctly. DWORD_PTR has a different size of > 32- and 64-bit systems, so using DWORD* would make it more complicated > to increment with sizeof(DWORD_PTR). Another reason is

Fwd: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Octavian Voicu
Same here. -- Forwarded message -- From: Octavian Voicu Date: Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit. To: joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Octavian Voicu wrote: > I just loo

Fwd: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-27 Thread Octavian Voicu
For some reason I forgot to hit reply to all. -- Forwarded message -- From: Octavian Voicu Date: Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit. To: joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

[PATCH 1/3] winmm: Fix mciSendString command parsing on 64-bit.

2010-08-26 Thread Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle
Octavian, are you aware of bug http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22146 and the partial patch and additional test cases there? >winmm: Add MCI_INTEGER_PTR return type for DWORD_PTR return values. >+#define MCI_INTEGER_PTR 13 What kind of testing did you perform on native systems to de