[Bug 36504] New: The XFORM matrix is calculated incorrectly in PlgBlt()
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Bug ID: 36504 Summary: The XFORM matrix is calculated incorrectly in PlgBlt() Product: Wine Version: 1.7.19 Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gdi32 Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: sashoalm(a)gmail.com I initially posted this at the wine-devel mailing list - http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2014-May/104356.html For now, I'll copy/paste the relevant parts describing how to reproduce the bug. The test is a VC6 project, you can find it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9PGUhmmnsm1S2VvZzc3WmhBY3c/edit?usp=sharin.... The test is a demo of PlgBlt that I found on CodeProject<http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/17712/The-GDI-magic-Rendering-reflections-and-smooth-sha>. You can compare how it works on XP and on Wine. For testing, I directly inserted the original Wine implementation of PlgBlt, as well as my patched version, into the VC6 project, and tested on that. This is because there seems to be an additional problem with MaskBlt, which I'll try tackling next. I have screenshots of what the demo looks using Windows's PlgBlt<http://imgur.com/q8qKGd7>, and Wine's PlgBlt <http://imgur.com/smYEV6z>. To test it, simply look at this function in the VC6 project: BOOL MyPlgBlt( HDC hdcDest, const POINT *lpPoint, HDC hdcSrc, INT nXSrc, INT nYSrc, INT nWidth, INT nHeight, HBITMAP hbmMask, INT xMask, INT yMask) { // return MyPlgBltWinePatched(hdcDest, lpPoint, hdcSrc, nXSrc, nYSrc, nWidth, nHeight, hbmMask, xMask, yMask); return MyPlgBltWineUnpatched(hdcDest, lpPoint, hdcSrc, nXSrc, nYSrc, nWidth, nHeight, hbmMask, xMask, yMask); // return PlgBlt(hdcDest, lpPoint, hdcSrc, nXSrc, nYSrc, nWidth, nHeight, hbmMask, xMask, yMask); } -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, testcase -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Julian Rüger <jr98(a)gmx.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jr98(a)gmx.net -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |adys.wh(a)gmail.com -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sebastian(a)fds-team.de -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- @Other readers: I have analyzed the differences between the old and the new set of equations, you can find some more details here on the mailing list: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2014-June/104518.html Most likely fixing the equation for eM22 should be sufficient, no need to rewrite the whole function: xf.eM22 = (rect[1].x*(plg[2].y - plg[0].y) - rect[2].x*(plg[1].y - plg[0].y) - rect[0].x*(plg[2].y - plg[1].y)) / det; @Alexander: Can you confirm that this single change resolves the issue? If yes I would suggest you to send a new patch, which really only modifies this part. I don't think you'll need to write a test for this single-line change, where most likely everyone can agree, that it looks like a mistake in the old code. The main problem of your huge patch was just, that noone could really follow, what has changed exactly. Regards, Sebastian -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Almaleh <sashoalm(a)gmail.com> --- Hi, @Sebastian I have just tested your proposed change in my demo project from http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/17712/The-GDI-magic-Rendering-reflection..., and indeed it produces the same image as Windows' own PlgBlt. Thank you for the suggestion. By the way, my equations were difficult to follow because they were machine-generated, as I've already said. So since this works, what is the next step? Should I propose a patch consisting of this change? Regards, Alexander -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 --- Comment #3 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- I would recommend to start a new try with such a minimal changes patch (creating a patch and sending it to wine-devel) - it seems like the author of the original formula already had the right idea, and just made a small "typo" in this line. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 --- Comment #4 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- Nice, the patch already got upstream :) Fixed with http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/8762842cd337a809a6504420da2aeee... -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |8762842cd337a809a6504420da2 | |aeeeb5d3618b6 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com> --- reported fixed -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #6 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.7.21. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Reuben <reuben_p(a)yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |reuben_p(a)yahoo.com -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36504 Reuben <reuben_p(a)yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|reuben_p(a)yahoo.com | -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org