September 2010 - Wine-devel

Re: ddraw: Add checking of SURFACEDESC type/nullness into CreateSurface methods.
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '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=5285 Your paranoid android. === W98SE (32 bit dsurface) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [4/4] msxml3/tests: Store test data as a table for ::nodeTypedValue() tests
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '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=5279 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 7322.9371, got L"7322,9371" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 40135.14, got L"40135,14" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 37813.59, got L"37813,59" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 0.5813889, got L"0,5813889" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 1.112512, got L"1,112512" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 0.412, got L"0,412" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 41221.421, got L"41221,421" === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 7322.9371, got L"7322,9371" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 40135.14, got L"40135,14" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 37813.59, got L"37813,59" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 0.5813889, got L"0,5813889" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 1.112512, got L"1,112512" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 0.412, got L"0,412" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 41221.421, got L"41221,421" === W7PROX64 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 7322.9371, got L"7322,9371" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 40135.14, got L"40135,14" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 37813.59, got L"37813,59" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 0.5813889, got L"0,5813889" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 1.112512, got L"1,112512" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 0.412, got L"0,412" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 41221.421, got L"41221,421" === W7PROX64 (64 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 7322.9371, got L"7322,9371" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 40135.14, got L"40135,14" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 37813.59, got L"37813,59" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 0.5813889, got L"0,5813889" domdoc.c:5082: Test failed: expected 1.112512, got L"1,112512" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 0.412, got L"0,412" domdoc.c:5089: Test failed: expected 41221.421, got L"41221,421"

2 1

Re: secur32: Handle extra data in schan_InitializeSecurityContextW.
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '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=5281 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit schannel) === No test summary line found === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 80090304 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090301 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090301 No test summary line found === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 80090304 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090301 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090301 schannel.c:693: Test failed: EncryptMessage failed: 80090301 === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090321 schannel.c:693: Test failed: EncryptMessage failed: 80090301 === WVISTAADM (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 80090318 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090318 schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 00000000 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090321 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090308 === W2K8SE (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 80090318 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090318 schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 00000000 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090321 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090308 === W7PRO (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 00090312 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090326 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090300 schannel.c:693: Test failed: EncryptMessage failed: 80090301 === W7PROX64 (32 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 00090312 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090326 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090300 No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit schannel) === schannel.c:654: Test failed: status = 00090312 schannel.c:661: Test failed: status = 80090326 schannel.c:671: Test failed: InitializeSecurityContext failed: 80090300 schannel.c:693: Test failed: EncryptMessage failed: 80090301

1 0

Re: [1/2]user32: remove unnecessary code (try 2)
by Alexandre Julliard 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> writes: > that code is in an else-case of an other "if (!(uFlags & DFCS_TRANSPARENT))" No it's not. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

2 1

Re: [1/2]user32: remove superfluous code
by Juan Lang 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

Hi André, > that code is in an else-case of an other "if (!(uFlags & DFCS_TRANSPARENT))" In that case, can't you remove the ternary operation in this line? UITOOLS95_DrawRectEdge(dc, r, edge, (uFlags & DFCS_FLAT) | ((uFlags & DFCS_TRANSPARENT) ? 0 : BF_MIDDLE) | BF_RECT | BF_SOFT); --Juan

1 0

Re: [PATCH] ole32: check for interface NULL which happens with e.g. Abiword
by Dmitry Timoshkov 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> wrote: > + unk = NULL; > hr = IDropTarget_QueryInterface(pDropTarget, &IID_IUnknown, (void**)&unk); > if(FAILED(hr)) > { > IStream_Release(stream); > return hr; > } > + if (!unk) { > + WARN("hr was %d, but unk is NULL.\n", hr); > + IStream_Release(stream); > + return E_NOINTERFACE; > + } > hr = CoMarshalInterface(stream, &IID_IDropTarget, unk, MSHCTX_LOCAL, NULL, MSHLFLAGS_TABLESTRONG); > IUnknown_Release(unk); Huw suggested a more simple solution which doesn't lead to duplicated code: + unk = NULL; hr = IDropTarget_QueryInterface(pDropTarget, &IID_IUnknown, (void**)&unk); + if (!unk) hr = E_NOINTERFACE; if(FAILED(hr)) -- Dmitry.

1 0

User-settable limit on desktop window size?
by Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle＠t-systems.com 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

Hi, Alexandre Julliard wrote in another thread: >The destop window is supposed to be the size of the whole screen. Is there something to have Wine consistently lie about the real size, i.e. report no resolution above 1024x768? I'm asking because I can remember some apps whose "centered" logos or requesters appear almost outside the virtual desktop window, towards the lower right, as if their coordinates were based on the physical dimension of the display. This is more and more problematic for old apps that may not work well on today's huge monitors (e.g. 1920x...) and need a virtual desktop to work (full screen mode may not be adequate or supported). OTOH I find it good when (other) apps can resize an initially small virtual desktop window (Motocross Madness 2 comes to mind, whose menu uses 640x480 only and resizes to much larger resolutions during race). Thank you for your help, Jörg Höhle

2 1

Re: d3dx9_36: Implement D3DXCreateMesh and initial ID3DXMesh methods. (try 3)
by Henri Verbeet 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

On 15 September 2010 01:55, Misha Koshelev <misha680(a)gmail.com> wrote: > + while (count < MAX_FVF_DECL_SIZE && (count == 0 || declaration[count-1].Stream != 0xFF)) > + { > + count++; > + } ...and similarly you'd want to use D3DXGetDeclLength() here, though I wonder if implementing DrawSubset() isn't going to require creating a vertex declaration anyway. > + if (!ref) > + { > + if (This->index_buffer) IDirect3DIndexBuffer9_Release(This->index_buffer); > + if (This->vertex_buffer) IDirect3DVertexBuffer9_Release(This->vertex_buffer); > + if (This->device) IDirect3DDevice9_Release(This->device); > + HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, This); > + } In which cases can these be NULL?

3 4

Re: Add Intel GM45 detection
by Henri Verbeet 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

You also have some trailing spaces.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] winmm: Auto-open MCI core commands only.
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '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=5258 Your paranoid android. === W98SE (32 bit mci) === mci.c:903: Test failed: not enough time elapsed 58ms

1 0