[Bug 18916] New: Thief 2 crashes when bringing up in-game menu
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18916 Summary: Thief 2 crashes when bringing up in-game menu Product: Wine Version: 1.1.23 Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: -unknown AssignedTo: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org ReportedBy: michael(a)araneidae.co.uk Created an attachment (id=21762) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=21762) Transcript of game run, complete with backtrace After the commit below, Thief 2 crashes with the attached backtrace when bringing up the in-game menu. This menu involves switching screen resolution to 640x480. This appears to have been generated by the following commit: commit f8c4832276fb740e527fed87aa27975f91546d26 Author: Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)codeweavers.com> Date: Fri Jun 5 10:10:48 2009 +0200 wined3d: Use GL_DEPTH24_STENCIL8_EXT for depth stencil formats. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hverbeet(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-12 14:51:05 --- Unable to CC Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)codeweavers.com> as e-mail not recognised by bug tracker, trying gmail address instead. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |regression -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #2 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-13 09:36:33 --- Created an attachment (id=21772) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=21772) Run log with WINEDEBUG=+ddraw,+d3d,+d3d_caps This is running current git with traces as suggested by Henri Verbeet. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #3 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-13 09:39:04 --- I've checked the Thief 2 demo ... and alas, it seems to be *completely* broken, I can't seem to get it to work at all on any 1.x version of Wine (haven't tried 0.9x versions), so we can't use this as a reference -- it crashes as soon as I try to start a fresh game (and I have no saved games to try, so it probably never worked very well...). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #4 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-15 04:02:43 --- Created an attachment (id=21802) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=21802) revert This should revert the patch (except for D24FS8, but that one isn't used by Thief 2). Note that the backtrace looks somewhat similar to bug 18636, although it isn't quite the same. Could be the same underlying issue. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #5 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-15 06:14:24 --- Could you add +d3d_surface to the trace? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #6 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-15 06:35:09 --- (In reply to comment #5)
Could you add +d3d_surface to the trace?
Sure -- I'll do it this evening, and I'll report back on the effect of your revert patch. Do you want all four traces in the log? (It'll be big!) Is it worth looking at the Thief 2 demo? I know that that isn't a regression (as far as I can tell my copy has never worked), but presumably it uses the same underlying technology ... so its failure might be quite instructive. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #7 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-15 06:43:50 --- (In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Could you add +d3d_surface to the trace?
Sure -- I'll do it this evening, and I'll report back on the effect of your revert patch. Do you want all four traces in the log? (It'll be big!)
Yes, but the last 200 lines or so should do. I think we're calling surface_upload_data() on the surface, but the data we're giving it isn't actually in GL_UNSIGNED_INT_24_8_EXT format, so it'll probably try to read past the end of the buffer.
Is it worth looking at the Thief 2 demo? I know that that isn't a regression (as far as I can tell my copy has never worked), but presumably it uses the same underlying technology ... so its failure might be quite instructive. It might be worth looking at on its own, but it's probably not needed for this bug.
-- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #8 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-15 10:54:54 --- Created an attachment (id=21813) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=21813) WINEDEBUG=+ddraw,+d3d,+d3d_caps,+d3d_surface log Last 10,000 lines of crash run with WINEDEBUG=+ddraw,+d3d,+d3d_caps,+d3d_surface -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #9 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-15 10:59:43 --- (In reply to comment #4)
Created an attachment (id=21802) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=21802) [details] revert
This should revert the patch (except for D24FS8, but that one isn't used by Thief 2). Note that the backtrace looks somewhat similar to bug 18636, although it isn't quite the same. Could be the same underlying issue.
With this patch it seems to work fine. At least this confirms the issue. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #10 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-16 03:20:29 --- I think http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-June/074312.html should fix this. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #11 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-16 05:30:21 --- (In reply to comment #10)
I think http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-June/074312.html should fix this.
I'm a bit troubled by this computation: WORD d15 = source[x] & 0xfffe; DWORD d24 = d15 * 0x100 + (d15 * 0xff80 + 0x3fff80) / 0x7fff00; If I multiply the arithmetic out as if this was floating point, this comes to d24 = 256.0078 * d15 + 0.5 Don't get it. You're not relying on d15*0xff80 overflowing and doing something evil ... are you? Certainly if the top bit of d15 is set then this overflows as an unsigned value ... and then the division, in this inner loop, is not going to speed things up. Why not just DWORD d24 = (source[x] & 0xfffe) << 8; ? What is the conversion rule that's really being applied here? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #12 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-16 06:02:38 --- (In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
I think http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-June/074312.html should fix this.
I'm a bit troubled by this computation:
WORD d15 = source[x] & 0xfffe; DWORD d24 = d15 * 0x100 + (d15 * 0xff80 + 0x3fff80) / 0x7fff00;
If I multiply the arithmetic out as if this was floating point, this comes to
d24 = 256.0078 * d15 + 0.5
Don't get it. You're not relying on d15*0xff80 overflowing and doing something evil ... are you? Certainly if the top bit of d15 is set then this overflows as an unsigned value ... and then the division, in this inner loop, is not going to speed things up.
Why not just
DWORD d24 = (source[x] & 0xfffe) << 8;
? What is the conversion rule that's really being applied here?
"DWORD d24 = (source[x] & 0xfffe) << 8;" would map 0x7fff to 0xfffe00 rather than 0xffffff. We essentially need to multiply by (0xffffff/0x7fff) and round correctly, which would result in something like "d24 = (d15 >> 1) * 512.0156 + 0.5", which in turn corresponds to the "d24 = 256.0078 * d15 + 0.5" you got above. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #13 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-16 06:06:30 --- (And we can't simply do ((d15 >> 1) * 0xffffff) / 0x7fff because that would either need long long or overflow.) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #14 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-16 07:59:35 --- (In reply to comment #12)
We essentially need to multiply by (0xffffff/0x7fff) and round correctly
Ok, I get it. How about this then (I take it WORD is unsigned, otherwise this won't quite work): WORD d15 = source[x] & 0xfffe; DWORD d24 = (d15 << 8) + (d15 >> 7); ? Saves multiplies and more importantly divides and is pretty accurate: effectively I've rewritten 1/(2^15-1) ~~ 2^-15 + 2^-30 (the 2^-45 term won't interest us) and so (2^24-1)/(2^15-1) * d15/2 ~~ 2^8 d15 + 2^-7 d15 . Certainly this works properly for d15 = 0xfffe. I'm not worried about the dangling half bit. I can do a detailed error analysis if you're not convinced, the worst error is just under half a bit -- if we really care, I can try to figure out how to get it back, but I'm sure we don't ;-) I do this kind of nonsense a lot on the ARM, where divide is to be studiously avoided in inner loops! I'll test your patch this evening. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #15 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-16 08:44:28 --- (In reply to comment #14)
How about this then (I take it WORD is unsigned, otherwise this won't quite work):
WORD d15 = source[x] & 0xfffe; DWORD d24 = (d15 << 8) + (d15 >> 7);
? Saves multiplies and more importantly divides and is pretty accurate: effectively I've rewritten
1/(2^15-1) ~~ 2^-15 + 2^-30
(the 2^-45 term won't interest us) and so
(2^24-1)/(2^15-1) * d15/2 ~~ 2^8 d15 + 2^-7 d15 .
Certainly this works properly for d15 = 0xfffe. I'm not worried about the dangling half bit. I can do a detailed error analysis if you're not convinced, the worst error is just under half a bit -- if we really care, I can try to figure out how to get it back, but I'm sure we don't ;-)
That half bit does get rounded up to a whole bit on occasion of course, but I can live with that. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to submit that as a patch. You might as well just write "dest[x] = (((source[x] & 0xfffe) << 16) + ((source[x] & 0xff80) << 1)) | (source[x] & 0x1);" though.
I do this kind of nonsense a lot on the ARM, where divide is to be studiously avoided in inner loops!
I don't think it's quite as expensive on modern x86, but it doesn't hurt to avoid. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #16 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-16 12:10:13 --- (In reply to comment #10)
I think http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-June/074312.html should fix this.
Seems to work ok. Not quite sure how to submit a patch to your patch, to be honest -- seems I have to wait for it to go into git first, and then I can patch against git. wine-patches is rather a busy list... (In reply to comment #15)
You might as well just write "dest[x] = (((source[x] & 0xfffe) << 16) + ((source[x] & 0xff80) << 1)) | (source[x] & 0x1);" though.
Seems uglier, but I take your point. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #17 from Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-16 12:15:41 --- (In reply to comment #16)
Seems to work ok. Not quite sure how to submit a patch to your patch, to be honest -- seems I have to wait for it to go into git first, and then I can patch against git. Yeah. It's in as 23231d5a62b2c23d0ec336b9e4b24a346eef3527 now though.
-- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #18 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-16 17:25:05 --- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
Seems to work ok. Not quite sure how to submit a patch to your patch, to be honest -- seems I have to wait for it to go into git first, and then I can patch against git. Yeah. It's in as 23231d5a62b2c23d0ec336b9e4b24a346eef3527 now though.
My patch submitted as http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-June/074355.html -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 --- Comment #19 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-17 03:21:33 --- This is all completely irrelevant now, but I was puzzling over how to get that last bit of rounding right in this calculation:
WORD d15 = source[x] & 0xfffe; DWORD d24 = (d15 << 8) + (d15 >> 7);
This produces a worst error of +-0.9825; if we allow for the fact that we have to round (so can subtract 0.5 from this error), we have an error of +-0.4825. Here's the best I can do (really not suggesting this goes into the code, this is just one of those details that bugs me until I can write it out): DWORD d15 = (source[x] & 0xfffe) << 7; DWORD d32 = (d15 << 9) + (d15 >> 6) - (d15 >> 15) + (1 << 7) DWORD d24 = d32 >> 8; This isn't perfect, but we *nearly* get the bottom bit right -- in fact, this only get it wrong 166 times out of 32768. The worst error is -0.5106..+0.5029, or after compensating for rounding, -0.0106..+0.0029. Ah well -- your original calculation gets this perfect (error +-0.4999, or 0 after rounding). These elusive last bits in simplified division are annoying, I have this annoyance elsewhere (again, in a context where the proper response is "who cares?"). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #20 from Michael Abbott <michael(a)araneidae.co.uk> 2009-06-17 07:02:08 --- Commit 23231d5a62b2c23d0ec336b9e4b24a346eef3527 fixes this. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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=18916 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #21 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> 2009-06-19 11:10:25 --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.1.24. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email 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