December 2011 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH 4/8 try2] jscript: Added bytecode version of try statement
by Marvin 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

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=16182 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [PATCH 8/8] jscript: Added more control flow tests
by Marvin 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

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=16181 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/8] jscript: Added bytecode version of try statement
by Marvin 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

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=16180 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: cscript: Add forwarder to wscript
by Jacek Caban 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

On 12/27/11 7:00 PM, André Hentschel wrote: > The difference between cscript and wscript is that wscipt should show a propertysheet and cscritp is console only, but our wscript doesn't show a propertysheet... It doesn't show a propertysheet yet, that's to be fixed. Forwarding one to another was always planned, but we need a way to switch modes. There is a command line switch to do it (//H:CScript and //H:WScript). AFAIR it didn't really work when I've tried it, but even if it's broken on Windows, we may still consider using it for our forwarding. Maybe just passing //B option would be good enough. Otherwise we'd need a Wine-specific way for informing wscript that it should behave like cscript. Differences are not too big, be we need a plan to address them. Jacek

1 1

Re: wininet: add a stub for DeleteWpadCacheForNetworks
by Dmitry Timoshkov 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +BOOL WINAPI DeleteWpadCacheForNetworks(int WPAD_CACHE_DELETE) Parameter name and type are completely wrong. > +{ > + FIXME(": stub\n"); > + return FALSE; > +} ... > +typedef enum{ > + WPAD_CACHE_DELETE_CURRENT = 0x0, > + WPAD_CACHE_DELETE_ALL = 0x1 > +} WPAD_CACHE_DELETE; -- Dmitry.

1 0

PLT Problems with Wine/Sparc
by André Hentschel 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

Hi, thanks to Austin i could work on our sparc port and it seems i have it it a workable state, the remaining problem is that somehow the plt entry to libwine is fixed up wrong. I know most people on the list don't know much about sparc, so wild guesses are all i want. --- snip --- readelf -r: 0002c988 00003315 R_SPARC_JMP_SLOT 00000000 wine_dbg_log + 0 objdump -D: 0002c988 <wine_dbg_log(a)plt>: 2c988: 03 00 00 78 sethi %hi(0x1e000), %g1 2c98c: 30 bf ff e1 b,a 2c910 <_PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_> 2c990: 01 00 00 00 nop gdb: 0xf66957e0 <+288>: call 0xf66a8988 <wine_dbg_log(a)plt> (gdb) printf "%08x\n", (void*)*0xf66a8988 033dfa34 (gdb) printf "%08x\n", (void*)*0xf66a898C 81c06200 (gdb) printf "%08x\n", (void*)*0xf66a8990 01000000 (gdb) --- /snip (also available as http://pastebin.com/JFN2w6q2 if bad format) --- it crashes (SIGSEGV) at wine_dbg_log(a)plt (0xf66a8988) in imm32.dll.so (if i remove the TRACE from DllMain it continues to crash with other libwine functions in winex11) 033dfa34 seems like a wrongly fixed up opcode to me. What do you guess? Should i file a bug? where? -- Best Regards, André Hentschel

2 1

NVidia Texture Tools still useful?
by Scott Ritchie 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

I found this old bug report today, that I had forgotten about: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/382512 Do we still have a use case for NVidia Texture Tools if I put these packages into the distro? Thanks, Scott Ritchie

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/4] d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetMatrix() test.
by Marvin 26 Dec '11

26 Dec '11

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=16158 Your paranoid android. === WVISTAADM (32 bit effect) === Failure running script in VM: The specified guest user must be logged in interactively to perform this operation

1 0

Re: kernel32/tests: test that GetModuleFileName returns an absolute path
by Dmitry Timoshkov 25 Dec '11

25 Dec '11

Thomas Faber <thfabba(a)gmx.de> wrote: > diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/tests/Makefile.in b/dlls/kernel32/tests/Makefile.in > index dce27db..2ce3ec6 100644 > --- a/dlls/kernel32/tests/Makefile.in > +++ b/dlls/kernel32/tests/Makefile.in > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > TESTDLL = kernel32.dll > -IMPORTS = user32 advapi32 > +IMPORTS = user32 advapi32 shlwapi Adding a shlwapi dependency to the kernel32 test suite is not a good idea, please find a way to avoid it. -- Dmitry.

2 1

Re: [PATCH RFC 5/5] dsound: convert from fixed to floating point
by Chris Robinson 25 Dec '11

25 Dec '11

On Saturday, December 24, 2011 9:20:38 PM Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Andrew Eikum converted the buffer position calculation code from fixed > point to floating point, because floating-point code is more readable. > I agree with him. FWIW, I'm not sure using floating point for the position index is that good of an idea since it needs to be converted to integer all the time. Float-to-int conversions are very slow because it involves reading the FPU control word, setting a new control word with the proper rounding mode (which takes several cycles), storing the float value as an integer, then setting the old control word back (which again takes several cycles). It does this every time a float gets converted to an int, and does something similar when you truncate/floor the float value. In addition, you have potential rounding errors caused by precision loss as the exponent gets larger. Fixed-point doesn't have this issue since the precision is fixed, and the result will always be consistent. E.g., val + step*3 == val + step + step + step is true with fixed-point, but may not be true with floating-point and can result in a value that's larger or smaller than you expect. In some circumstances, it could even cause you to read past the end of the buffer. If you're concerned about cleanliness, perhaps some simple inline functions could be used to hide the bit-manipulation.

1 0