Re: msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Piotr Caban]

On 05/17/13 08:01, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
>
> dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c b/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c
> index 7a7aafe..ce56c14 100644
> --- a/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c
> +++ b/dlls/msvcp90/msvcp90_main.c
> @@ -80,10 +80,13 @@ static void init_cxx_funcs(void)
>
> BOOL WINAPI DllMain(HINSTANCE hinstDLL, DWORD fdwReason, LPVOID lpvReserved)
>   {
> - TRACE("(0x%p, %d, %p)\n", hinstDLL, fdwReason, lpvReserved);
> -
>
> TRACE("(%p,%u,%p)\n", hinstDLL, fdwReason, lpvReserved);
>
> switch (fdwReason)
>  {
> -
>    case DLL_WINE_PREATTACH:
> -
>        return FALSE;  /* prefer native version */
> -
>     case DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH:
>         init_cxx_funcs();
>         init_lockit();

msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX 
dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.

msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.

...
> msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX 
> dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.

Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?

msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Piotr Caban]

On 05/17/13 10:22, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > > Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
>
> ...
> > msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
> > dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
>
> Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?

As far as I remember msvcp90.dll is the only one.

On the other hand there are other benefits of preferring builtin dlls 
over native ones. Thanks to it the dll is tested by more users. Because 
there are no reported bugs related to msvcr90 I would prefer to use 
builtin dll in this case as well (actually there's one bug but it's 
abandoned).

msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > > > Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
> >
> > ...
> > > msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
> > > dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
> >
> > Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
>
> As far as I remember msvcp90.dll is the only one.
>
> On the other hand there are other benefits of preferring builtin dlls 
> over native ones. Thanks to it the dll is tested by more users. Because 
> there are no reported bugs related to msvcr90 I would prefer to use 
> builtin dll in this case as well (actually there's one bug but it's 
> abandoned).

What's the point in treating only msvcp90 specially and leaving all other
msvcp* dlls prefer native versions? At least for consistency sake.

msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Piotr Caban]

On 05/17/13 10:47, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Piotr Caban  wrote:
> > > > > Just like msvcp60,msvcp70,msvcp71,msvcp80,msvcp100,msvcp110 do.
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > msvcp90 has some wine specific exports. This patch breaks other msvcpXX
> > > > dlls when native msvcp90 is installed.
> > >
> > > Isn't that the case for other msvcp* dlls?
> >
> > As far as I remember msvcp90.dll is the only one.
> >
> > On the other hand there are other benefits of preferring builtin dlls
> > over native ones. Thanks to it the dll is tested by more users. Because
> > there are no reported bugs related to msvcr90 I would prefer to use
> > builtin dll in this case as well (actually there's one bug but it's
> > abandoned).
>
> What's the point in treating only msvcp90 specially and leaving all other
> msvcp* dlls prefer native versions? At least for consistency sake.

I already wrote you what's the point of treating msvcp90 differently. If 
you want you can change other dlls as well but you will need to spend 
time working on regressions caused by the change.

msvcp90: Prefer native version.

[Rosanne DiMesio]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:43:29 +0200
Piotr Caban  wrote:
> On the other hand there are other benefits of preferring builtin dlls 
> over native ones. Thanks to it the dll is tested by more users. Because 
> there are no reported bugs related to msvcr90 I would prefer to use 
> builtin dll in this case as well (actually there's one bug but it's 
> abandoned).

The only users I see who consistently have problems with builtin msvcp90 these days are the ones using the stable release, and upgrading to the development branch generally fixes it for them. Users who do install native usually use winetricks, which sets the override for them.