Calling a 16-bit DLL in Win95

[kid joe]

Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

I'm trying to get the application working on Win95 with very little
success.

While GetProcAddress() can still locate UT(Un)Register, when
I actually call the located pfnUTRegister to register my
UTProc function I get a FALSE return code (i.e. failed).
If I check GetLastError() then I am told that the function
executed correctly!! Although I know that the UTInit was
not even executed.

Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

Thanks!

Joe

[Lew Pitcher]

kid joe wrote:

Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

[snip]

Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

Sorry, Kid Joe, but you are going to get a plethora of responses that
will (almost) all tell you that comp.lang.c has nothing to do with the
special extensions to the C language that Microsoft has implemented to
permit programming in the Microsoft Windows environments. comp.lang.c
discusses programming in "Standard" C (K&R, or one of the the ISO C
standards).

You /really/ should ask your question in a newsgroup that takes
programming in MSWindows as it's subject matter. A newsgroup like
omp.os.ms-windows.programmer, or
comp.os.ms-windows.win95, or
comp.os.ms-windows.misc, or
comp.os.ms-windows.apps
might be able to help you better.

HTH

[Flash Gordon]

kid joe wrote, On 14/11/08 20:47:

Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

I'm trying to get the application working on Win95 with very little
success.

This really is incredibly Windows specific and not a language issue at
all (the problems would be there if you were using Assembler and Visual
Basic) so you need to ask in a Windows group.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to sm**@spam.causeway.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

[jacob navia]

kid joe wrote:

Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

This is not very fresh... Win32s was discontinued in 1994
some 14 years ago. The 16 bit DLL is even older.

I'm trying to get the application working on Win95 with very little
success.

This is not very surprising. You are wasting your time.

While GetProcAddress() can still locate UT(Un)Register, when
I actually call the located pfnUTRegister to register my
UTProc function I get a FALSE return code (i.e. failed).

UT is "Universal Thunk", used to call 16 bit code from
windows 32 bit. Problem is, this is no longer supported
by Microsoft and nobody knows if those entry points are
still functional.

If I check GetLastError() then I am told that the function
executed correctly!! Although I know that the UTInit was
not even executed.

Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

The alternative is to rewrite those applications under win32

Or, install 64 bit Vista, buy VMware, install msdos with
windows 3.1 and communicate between the application and
the 16 bit dll by using the socket layer!

Thanks!

Joe

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Bartc]

"jacob navia" <ja***@nospam.comwrote in message
news:gf**********@aioe.org...

kid joe wrote:

>Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

This is not very fresh... Win32s was discontinued in 1994
some 14 years ago. The 16 bit DLL is even older.

The OP is trying to get this working under Win95. Win95 is from (I'm
guessing) 1995, only a year or so later. You would expect these things to
still work.

For reasons why it doesn't, possibly ask on a group with win32 in it.

--
Bartc

[kid joe]

Hi Jacob,

Thanks a lot for the advice. You've confirmed that it's not an easy
task... but I'd really love to be able to use the functionality from the
16bit DLL, it would be a nightmare to reimplement.

Even if Microsoft don't support it any more (their attitude to backwards
compatibility really stinks!), do you know of a 3rd party DLL that would
do thunking? As I understand it, it just needs the addresses to be
translated from 32-bit style to 16-bit style... someone must have done it?

Thanks

Joe
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:17:08 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

kid joe wrote:

>Hi

I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

This is not very fresh... Win32s was discontinued in 1994
some 14 years ago. The 16 bit DLL is even older.

>I'm trying to get the application working on Win95 with very little
success.

This is not very surprising. You are wasting your time.

>While GetProcAddress() can still locate UT(Un)Register, when
I actually call the located pfnUTRegister to register my
UTProc function I get a FALSE return code (i.e. failed).

UT is "Universal Thunk", used to call 16 bit code from
windows 32 bit. Problem is, this is no longer supported
by Microsoft and nobody knows if those entry points are
still functional.

>If I check GetLastError() then I am told that the function
executed correctly!! Although I know that the UTInit was
not even executed.

Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

The alternative is to rewrite those applications under win32

Or, install 64 bit Vista, buy VMware, install msdos with
windows 3.1 and communicate between the application and
the 16 bit dll by using the socket layer!

>Thanks!

Joe

[kid joe]

Hi Lew,

You are too pessimistic!

I've always got good answers to all my questions here.

Best

Joe
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:02:41 -0500, Lew Pitcher wrote:

kid joe wrote:

Hi
>
I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

[snip]

Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

Sorry, Kid Joe, but you are going to get a plethora of responses that
will (almost) all tell you that comp.lang.c has nothing to do with the
special extensions to the C language that Microsoft has implemented to
permit programming in the Microsoft Windows environments. comp.lang.c
discusses programming in "Standard" C (K&R, or one of the the ISO C
standards).

You /really/ should ask your question in a newsgroup that takes
programming in MSWindows as it's subject matter. A newsgroup like
omp.os.ms-windows.programmer, or
comp.os.ms-windows.win95, or
comp.os.ms-windows.misc, or
comp.os.ms-windows.apps
might be able to help you better.

HTH

[Bartc]

"kid joe" <sp******@spamtrap.invalidwrote in message
news:gf**********@aioe.org...

Hi Jacob,

Thanks a lot for the advice. You've confirmed that it's not an easy
task... but I'd really love to be able to use the functionality from the
16bit DLL, it would be a nightmare to reimplement.

Even if Microsoft don't support it any more (their attitude to backwards
compatibility really stinks!), do you know of a 3rd party DLL that would
do thunking? As I understand it, it just needs the addresses to be
translated from 32-bit style to 16-bit style... someone must have done it?

Try google on "calling 16-bit dll".

If you want to try some programming yourself, I think 32-bit/16-bit code
work in different processor modes and can be a bit tricky; perhaps ask in
comp.lang.asm.x86.

--
Bartc

[Keith Thompson]

kid joe <sp******@spamtrap.invalidwrites:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:02:41 -0500, Lew Pitcher wrote:

>kid joe wrote:

> I am porting an old 32 bit application that uses thunking to call
a 16bit DLL under Win32s. The application uses functionality
provided by a custom 16 bit DLL (there is no 32 bit version).

[snip]

> Anyone know what is going on. Is it that UT is not supported
under Win95 and if so is there another alternative?

Sorry, Kid Joe, but you are going to get a plethora of responses that
will (almost) all tell you that comp.lang.c has nothing to do with the
special extensions to the C language that Microsoft has implemented to
permit programming in the Microsoft Windows environments. comp.lang.c
discusses programming in "Standard" C (K&R, or one of the the ISO C
standards).

You /really/ should ask your question in a newsgroup that takes
programming in MSWindows as it's subject matter. A newsgroup like
omp.os.ms-windows.programmer, or
comp.os.ms-windows.win95, or
comp.os.ms-windows.misc, or
comp.os.ms-windows.apps
might be able to help you better.

You are too pessimistic!

I've always got good answers to all my questions here.

It's not pessimism, it's simply an attempt to get you the best help
you can get. The newsgroups mentioned above are full of experts on
just the kind of thing you're asking about. comp.lang.c may have a
few people who know this stuff, but this really is not the best place
to get information about Microsoft-specific issues. Someone could
post a seemingly valid answer with subtle flaws, and it's likely that
nobody else here would catch it; in a Windows group, there are enough
other experts that such errors are less likely to escape scrutiny.
(jacob navia, as far as I know, knows his stuff when it comes to
Windows programming, but he doesn't seem to understand what I've just
told you about the best place to discuss it.)

And please don't top-post. See the following:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Mark McIntyre]

kid joe wrote:

Hi Lew,

You are too pessimistic!

I've always got good answers to all my questions here.

How do you know? The experts in Windows programming hang out elsewhere,
which is where you should be asking.

Its perfectly possible the answers you've been given work by accident,
are deprecated and unsupported by the vendor, or involve horrible hacks
that are likely to fail without warning. As a self-confessed novice, can
you really expect to spot the difference?

[CBFalconer]

kid joe wrote:

>
Thanks a lot for the advice. You've confirmed that it's not an easy
task... but I'd really love to be able to use the functionality
from the 16bit DLL, it would be a nightmare to reimplement.

Even if Microsoft don't support it any more (their attitude to
backwards compatibility really stinks!), do you know of a 3rd party
DLL that would do thunking? As I understand it, it just needs the
addresses to be translated from 32-bit style to 16-bit style...
someone must have done it?

This is off-topic on c.l.c. Try a newsgroup that deals with
Microsoft and/or Windows.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[jacob navia]

kid joe wrote:

Hi Jacob,

Thanks a lot for the advice. You've confirmed that it's not an easy
task... but I'd really love to be able to use the functionality from the
16bit DLL, it would be a nightmare to reimplement.

Even if Microsoft don't support it any more (their attitude to backwards
compatibility really stinks!), do you know of a 3rd party DLL that would
do thunking? As I understand it, it just needs the addresses to be
translated from 32-bit style to 16-bit style... someone must have done it?

Look, all the thunking requires compiler support. As far as I remember
that old
procedure, you had to compile the thunks using text files that
contained the description of the thunks needed.
You will have to contact the software museum to get them.
You can start here:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...5763&x=10&y=14

Then, you have to create all the thunking scripts, etc.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[kid joe]

Thanks a lot for the link, Jacob. It looks incredibly complicated but I'll
give it a go!

Best

Joe
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:03:03 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

kid joe wrote:

>Hi Jacob,

Thanks a lot for the advice. You've confirmed that it's not an easy
task... but I'd really love to be able to use the functionality from the
16bit DLL, it would be a nightmare to reimplement.

Even if Microsoft don't support it any more (their attitude to backwards
compatibility really stinks!), do you know of a 3rd party DLL that would
do thunking? As I understand it, it just needs the addresses to be
translated from 32-bit style to 16-bit style... someone must have done it?

Look, all the thunking requires compiler support. As far as I remember
that old
procedure, you had to compile the thunks using text files that
contained the description of the thunks needed.
You will have to contact the software museum to get them.
You can start here:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...5763&x=10&y=14

Then, you have to create all the thunking scripts, etc.

--
.--------------------.
| |
| Good Afternoon... | .--.--.
| | .; .;|;. ;.
`-------------. ,---' .;_;' `;_;.
\| ; ;' `; ;
\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )
\| . . |/
........... . .:::::. . .______
/ . '---` . '\
.' `. .' \
| ____,.- . | `.....' | _______ |
| ,-' \ /|\'' \.-- |
| / \.'\ /,'. \. - |
| /| ` `\ / \ |
| ,/ _ '/ '\ |
,-' ,-. |o '
/ '| | | | \
/ ,/| |o | \ `
| .' | |.' |. \ \
________/ .'____|________________________||__`. `__________
( \ ) / )
'-. '-. ( .-` .-`
'-. .-'--.__. .-.__.--`-. .-`
'-..' \--' : ~`:=,`- `..-`
\ .. \\ |`-'|`-, /
\\\\\\\) | |`-'/.'/
\)\)\\ `-' `-'
`