Fixed bugs #882 and 865, re-opening bug #634 Ronald Lamprecht to SDL Hi, Sam Lantinga wrote: The problem with that fix is that it breaks IME events again. Maybe we can handle keyboard events differently to prevent this issue? Spending an hour reading MSDN, analysing SDL and another hour testing the reality on XP I am really wondering how patch r4990 could have ever worked in any situation. It's main effect is to break the unicode translation and causing spurious activation events! Why does TranslateMessage(&msg) nothing useful? Simply because it does not affect "msg" at all! All keyboard events are dispatched without the slightest change (see MSDN). TranslateMessage() just appends additional WM_CHAR, WM_DEADCHAR, WM_SYSCHAR, WM_SYSDEADCHAR event messages to the queue. But I could not find any SDL event handling routine that catches these events and transforms them to proper SDL keyevents while eliminating the corresponding WM_KEYDOWN, etc. events. Thus any IME input like the '@' generated by "Alt + 6(Numpad) + 4(Numpad)" is simply lost. But the situation is even worse! Up to r4990 the TranslateKey()/ToUnicode() calls did evaluate dead keys and did deliver proper key events for subsequent key strokes like '´' + 'e' resulting in 'é'. ToUnicode() needs proper key state informations to be able to handle these substitutions. But unfortunatly TranslateMessage() needs the same state information and eats it up while generating the WM_CHAR messages :-( Thus the current 1.2.14 breakes the partial IME support of previous releases, too. The key state race condition between ToUnicode() and TranslateMessage() requires to avoid any ToUnicode() usage for receiving proper WM_CHAR, etc. messages generated by TranslateMessage(). (Yes - the '@' and 'é' appear as WM_CHAR messages when unicode is switched off). The spurious SDL activation events are *not* caused by additional WM_ACTIVATE Windows messages! Besides DIB_HandleMessage() SDL_PrivateAppActive() is called by another source which I am not yet aware of - any hints? Thus I do strongly recommend the deletion of the TranslateMessage(&msg) call as a quick fix. A proper support of unicode and IME requires a clean SDL keyboard input concept first. Which SDL keyboards events should be transmitted to the app when the user presses '´' + 'e' ? Within the current unicode handling the first key stroke is hidden. Even though ToUnicode() delivers the proper key SDL does ignore it in TranslateKey(). Just the composed key event is transmitted to the app. That is what you expect for text input, but the app can no longer use keys like '^' as a key button because it will never receive a key event for it! With a given concept it seems to be necessary to regenerate SDL key events out of the WM_CHAR, etc. events and to drop all related direct WM_KEYDOWN, etc. events while the remaining basic WM_KEYDOWN, etc. events would still have to result in SDL key events. Anyway the source of the spurious WM_ACTIVATE should be located to avoid future trouble. Greets, Ronald

/*
    SDL - Simple DirectMedia Layer
    Copyright (C) 1997-2009 Sam Lantinga

    This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

    This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
    Lesser General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA

    Sam Lantinga
    slouken@libsdl.org
*/
#include "SDL_config.h"

/* Mutex functions using the OS/2 API */

#define INCL_DOSERRORS
#define INCL_DOSSEMAPHORES
#include <os2.h>

#include "SDL_mutex.h"


struct SDL_mutex {
	HMTX hmtxID;
};

/* Create a mutex */
DECLSPEC SDL_mutex * SDLCALL SDL_CreateMutex(void)
{
  SDL_mutex *mutex;
  APIRET ulrc;

  /* Allocate mutex memory */
  mutex = (SDL_mutex *)SDL_malloc(sizeof(*mutex));
  if (mutex)
  {
    /* Create the mutex, with initial value signaled */
    ulrc = DosCreateMutexSem(NULL,                  // Create unnamed semaphore
                             &(mutex->hmtxID),      // Pointer to handle
                             0L,                    // Flags: create it private (not shared)
                             FALSE);                // Initial value: unowned
    if (ulrc!=NO_ERROR)
    {
      SDL_SetError("Couldn't create mutex");
      SDL_free(mutex);
      mutex = NULL;
    }
  } else {
    SDL_OutOfMemory();
  }
  return(mutex);
}

/* Free the mutex */
DECLSPEC void SDLCALL SDL_DestroyMutex(SDL_mutex *mutex)
{
  if ( mutex )
  {
    if ( mutex->hmtxID )
    {
      DosCloseMutexSem(mutex->hmtxID);
      mutex->hmtxID = 0;
    }
    SDL_free(mutex);
  }
}

/* Lock the mutex */
DECLSPEC int SDLCALL SDL_mutexP(SDL_mutex *mutex)
{
  if ( mutex == NULL )
  {
    SDL_SetError("Passed a NULL mutex");
    return -1;
  }
  if ( DosRequestMutexSem(mutex->hmtxID, SEM_INDEFINITE_WAIT) != NO_ERROR )
  {
    SDL_SetError("Couldn't wait on mutex");
    return -1;
  }
  return(0);
}

/* Unlock the mutex */
DECLSPEC int SDLCALL SDL_mutexV(SDL_mutex *mutex)
{
  if ( mutex == NULL )
  {
    SDL_SetError("Passed a NULL mutex");
    return -1;
  }
  if ( DosReleaseMutexSem(mutex->hmtxID) != NO_ERROR )
  {
    SDL_SetError("Couldn't release mutex");
    return -1;
  }
  return(0);
}