[Bug 54407] New: user32:msg - test_SendMessage_other_thread() sometimes gets a bad WM_USER message sequence in Wine
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54407 Bug ID: 54407 Summary: user32:msg - test_SendMessage_other_thread() sometimes gets a bad WM_USER message sequence in Wine Product: Wine Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: user32 Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: fgouget(a)codeweavers.com Distribution: --- user32:msg - test_SendMessage_other_thread() sometimes gets a bad WM_USER message sequence in Wine: msg.c:19187: Test failed: SendMessage from other thread 1: 1: the msg 0x0400 was expected, but got msg 0x0403 instead msg.c:19187: Test failed: SendMessage from other thread 1: 2: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 0400 msg.c:19201: Test failed: wrong status 00080000 msg.c:19207: Test failed: SendMessage from other thread 3: 0: the msg 0x0403 was expected, but got msg 0x0401 instead msg.c:19207: Test failed: SendMessage from other thread 3: 1: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0401 - actual 0000 See https://test.winehq.org/data/patterns.html#user32:msg A somewhat similar issue has been happening for some time on Windows 7 (see bug 53434). This one started happening about twice per month in Wine on 2022-10-14 (debian11-win32). -- 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=54407 François Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |source, 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.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54407 --- Comment #1 from Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- Sounds like a synchronization failure? WM_USER+3 sent too early? OK, so based on SendMessage_thread_2 being a todo_wine, we know we're dealing with SendMessage_thread_1. We also know that the WM_USER+3 is processed inside the GetMessageA call in test_SendMessage_other_thread. So it seems that after WM_USER+2 is processed, the background thread is able to send out the WM_USER+3 before the main thread is able to remove the posted WM_USER from the queue and return from GetMessageA. I don't see anything that would prevent this from happening, so it's not clear to me whether this is intended to test some subtle timing thing, or it's just a race condition in the test. -- 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=54407 --- Comment #2 from Esme Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> --- This entire test seems to make a lot of assumptions about how long things take, and I'm not sure if that's really fixable. -- 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)
-
WineHQ Bugzilla