On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:45:46 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> 0018:trace:ole:CoMarshalInterface Using standard marshaling
> 0018:trace:ole:CoMarshalInterface Calling IMarshal::MarshalInterace
> 0018:trace:ole:StdMarshalImpl_MarshalInterface
> (...,{---c000-0046},...)
> wine: Un
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:46:42 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> If I combine it with Rob's CoInitializeEx patch rather than Mike's then it
> executes but still fails, as follows:
Try this patch. It's a modified form of Robs:
Index: dlls/ole32/rpc.c
=
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 07:46 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
0013:trace:ole:listener_thread Process listener thread starting on (\\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100011)
...
0009:fixme:ole:PIPE_GetNewPipeBuf Could not open named pipe \\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100
On December 18, 2004 08:10 am, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 07:46 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> > 0013:trace:ole:listener_thread Process listener thread starting on
> > (\\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100011)
>
> ...
>
> > 0009:fixme:ole:PIPE_GetNewPipeBuf Could not open named pipe
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 07:46 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> 0013:trace:ole:listener_thread Process listener thread starting on
> (\\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100011)
...
> 0009:fixme:ole:PIPE_GetNewPipeBuf Could not open named pipe
> \\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100014, le is 2
Wel
On December 18, 2004 05:03 am, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Bill Medland wrote:
> >On December 17, 2004 01:56 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:53 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> >>>Well, it gets me past the illegal memory reference; I can start looking
> >>>at what else failed now.
> >>
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 13:13 +, Robert Shearman wrote:
> That patch is very hackish and needlessly complicated. This patch
> accomplishes the same task in fewer lines (note that this is not the
> best solution for the problem, I am working on that):
>
> Index: compobj.c
>
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:49:45 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
Does anyone know anything about this? e.g. when starting a new thread where
does the apartment get initialized?
It's supposed to get initialized in the call to CoInitialize[Ex] however
the _LocalServerThread never c
Bill Medland wrote:
On December 17, 2004 01:56 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:53 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
Well, it gets me past the illegal memory reference; I can start looking
at what else failed now.
In case you aren't already aware, Rob and I are doing a lot of
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:27:30 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> fixme:ole:PIPE_GetNewPipeBuf Could not open named pipe
> \\.\pipe\WINE_OLE_StubMgr_00100011, le is 2
I see the problem. The patch which switched us over to using OXIDs isn't
complete, the listener_thread should be per-apartment not
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:27:30 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> Does anything jump out at you?
>
> (Ill get started on the learning curve)
Well, the error messages describe what's going on. The question is,
why? I clearly need to resurrect my out of process COM test program and
make it a part of the t
On December 17, 2004 01:56 pm, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:53 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> > Well, it gets me past the illegal memory reference; I can start looking
> > at what else failed now.
>
> In case you aren't already aware, Rob and I are doing a lot of work in
> this area
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:34:53 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> Well, it gets me past the illegal memory reference; I can start looking at
> what else failed now.
In case you aren't already aware, Rob and I are doing a lot of work in
this area currently. If you want to pool resources that'd be good. P
On December 17, 2004 11:18 am, Mike Hearn wrote:
Thanks Mike
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:49:45 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> > Does anyone know anything about this? e.g. when starting a new thread
> > where does the apartment get initialized?
>
> It's supposed to get initialized in the call to CoIni
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:49:45 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
> Does anyone know anything about this? e.g. when starting a new thread where
> does the apartment get initialized?
It's supposed to get initialized in the call to CoInitialize[Ex] however
the _LocalServerThread never calls this as it's an
Is there any chance of help here, please.
For one reason or another I need to help get the ole32/oleaut32/rpcrt4 working
for our application (the REG_EXPAND_SZ issue means that we don't work with
wine after 200409 because of the mix of native dlls we use)
I just tried running with the native ol
16 matches
Mail list logo
