[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx |
Date: |
Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:07:08 +0300 |
> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 12:45:02 +0800
>
> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> BTW, would the below patch make sense?
> >
> > No, not at present, because it won't run on Windows 98 either, without
> > KernelEx.
>
> OK, following are my conclusions from tests conducted on "real" Windows
> 98 and 95 installations with no supplemental software but the Microsoft
> Layer for Unicode. These DLLs and symbols are missing (not merely
> stubs) from English installations of both:
>
> USP10.DLL
> ScriptItemize
> ScriptShape
> ScriptPlace
> ScriptGetGlyphABCWidth
> ScriptFreeCache
> ScriptGetCMap
As I said, I'm not sure Uniscribe is a problem in practice. We could
make it a mandatory requirement, like UNICOWS.DLL, if needed.
> Shell_NotifyIconW
> ShellExecuteExW
> SHFileOperationW
> ReadDirectoryChangesW
Does Emacs fail to start due to these being absent? If not, please
submit separate bug reports about each API if something bad happens
when the relevant code is executed in Emacs, and let's discuss each
such issue separately. Solutions could be very different in each
case, from just letting the operation fail to adding a call through
function pointer, and anything in-between.
> these symbols are absent from only Windows 95:
>
> CancelIo
> SendInput
> GetWindowInfo
> GetMenuBarInfo
Again, what bad things happen due to that? Since we now officially
don't support Windows 95, can we just forget about those?
> Of the functions exclusive to Windows 98, SendInput and CancelIo are
> never called on 9X systems, since funhook is not installed on such
> systems and file notifications are disabled on all 9X systems, and
> GetWindowInfo and GetMenuBarInfo are either omitted on Windows 95 in the
> patch, or trivially replaced, without complicating affected code.
I interpret this as "there's no problem we should solve".
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, (continued)
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Stefan Kangas, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Po Lu, 2024/06/15
- Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/16