December 2010 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: 64-bit Notepad2 crashes
by Susan Cragin 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

-----Original Message----- >From: Austin Lund <austin.lund(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Dec 28, 2010 6:14 PM >To: Susan Cragin <susancragin(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Wine Developers <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> >Subject: Re: 64-bit Notepad2 crashes > >On 29 December 2010 04:47, Susan Cragin <susancragin(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> Stack dump: >> 0x000000000022b470: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >> 0x000000000022b480: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >> 0x000000000022b490: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >> 0x000000000022b4a0: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >> 0x000000000022b4b0: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 >[snip] >> Backtrace: >> =>0 0x00007f3a9dd5cafb PathIsUNCW+0x7b() in shlwapi (0x000000000022b860) > >The stack has been blitzed? Or is this local variables (even though >PathIsUNCW doesn't have any)? It's hard to know what's going on >without a proper stack trace. PathIsUNCW is such a small function, the >problem is almost certainly further up the call chain. Well, anybody up for seeing a couple of thousand lines of WINEDEBUG-+all, or should I run relay only? There used to be a place to post log files so people could look at them... but I've forgotten where it is.

2 1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Added ui64tow_s tests for msvcrt (msvcr80, 90 and 100 benefits from this) (resend)
by Alexandre Julliard 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

Arno Teigseth <arnotixe(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -47,9 +76,16 @@ static void __cdecl test_invalid_parameter_handler(const wchar_t *expression, > const wchar_t *function, const wchar_t *file, > unsigned line, uintptr_t arg) > { > - /* we just ignore handler calls */ > + /* we USED TO just ignore handler calls */ > + CHECK_EXPECT(invalid_parameter_handler); > + ok(expression == NULL, "expression is not NULL\n"); > + ok(function == NULL, "function is not NULL\n"); > + ok(file == NULL, "file is not NULL\n"); > + ok(line == 0, "line = %u\n", line); > + ok(arg == 0, "arg = %lx\n", (UINT_PTR)arg); msvcrt doesn't allow changing the handler. Invalid parameter tests have to be in msvcr90. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: xmllite/tests: Use an iface instead of a vtbl pointer in testinput.
by Marvin 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7894 Your paranoid android. === WVISTAADM (32 bit reader) === No test summary line found === W7PRO (32 bit reader) === No test summary line found

2 1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Added ui64tow_s tests for msvcrt take 4 Can't believe I forgot to commit before creating the patch...
by James Mckenzie 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

Arno Teigseth <arnotixe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You'll have to resend both parts of the patch for the testbot to recognize them. Use (resend) in the subject line for us humans. James McKenzie

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Added ui64tow_s tests for msvcrt (The function was moved from msvcr90 to msvcrt so that msvcr80, 90 and 100
by Marvin 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7897 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

1 0

Re: ntdll/tests: Don't test function directly when reporting GetLastError()
by Marvin 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7877 Your paranoid android. === W7PROX64 (32 bit exception) === No test summary line found === WVISTAADM (32 bit directory) === TestLauncher.c:89: Test failed: Can't open test executable C:\winetest\ntdll_test.exe, error 32

1 0

Re: [PATCH] cmd/tests: Make sure, that ERRORLEVEL has a defined value [try 2]
by Alexandre Julliard 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev(a)web.de> writes: > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ echo %UNKNOWN%S > echo P%UNKNOWN% > echo P%UNKNOWN%S > echo %ERRORLEVEL > +cmd /c exit 0 > echo %ERRORLEVEL% > echo %ERRORLEVEL%%ERRORLEVEL% > echo %ERRORLEVEL%ERRORLEVEL% It already has a defined value. What is this supposed to fix? -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: msvcrt: Implement _fcvt_s. (resend)
by Alexandre Julliard 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

Eryk Wieliczko <ewdevel(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -1127,9 +1127,9 @@ int CDECL _ecvt_s( char *buffer, MSVCRT_size_t length, double number, int ndigit > /* special case - inf */ > if(number == HUGE_VAL || number == -HUGE_VAL) > { > - memset(buffer, '0', ndigits); > + memset(buffer, '0', max(ndigits, 0)); > memcpy(buffer, infret, min(ndigits, sizeof(infret) - 1 ) ); > - buffer[ndigits] = '\0'; > + buffer[max(ndigits, 0)] = '\0'; You'd have to fix the memcpy too, though the whole thing doesn't make much sense if ndigits is negative. Probably needs to be rethought, with some test cases. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/8] jscript: Ensure that the whole script is parsed
by Marvin 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7868 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === WVISTAADM (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2K8SE (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PRO (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/8] jscript: Better syntax error tests
by Marvin 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=7867 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === WVISTAADM (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W2K8SE (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PRO (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0