April 2016 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: kernel32/tests: Add initial tests for GetConsoleFontInfo
by Marvin 22 Apr '16

22 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22421 Your paranoid android. === w8 (32 bit console) === console.c:1445: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 851146013 console.c:1445: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 851146013 console.c:1445: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 851146013 console.c:1689: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 851146013 console.c:1689: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 851146013 console.c:1689: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 851146013 === w864 (32 bit console) === console.c:2567: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE, got 1 console.c:2573: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2580: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2587: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:1270: Test failed: expected VerifyConsoleIoHandle to succeed console.c:1445: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 844049133 console.c:1445: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 844049133 console.c:1445: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 844049133 console.c:1689: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 844049133 console.c:1689: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 844049133 console.c:1689: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 844049133 console.c:2148: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2214: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2280: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 === w1064 (32 bit console) === console.c:2567: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE, got 1 console.c:2573: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2580: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2587: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:1270: Test failed: expected VerifyConsoleIoHandle to succeed console.c:1445: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 3107847202 console.c:1445: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 3107847202 console.c:1445: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 3107847202 console.c:1689: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [13] Expected output count to be 0, got 3107847202 console.c:1689: Test failed: [15] Expected output count to be 0, got 3107847202 console.c:1689: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 3107847202 console.c:2148: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2214: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2280: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 === w864 (64 bit console) === console.c:2567: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE, got 1 console.c:2573: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2580: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2587: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:1270: Test failed: expected VerifyConsoleIoHandle to succeed console.c:1445: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:2148: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2214: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2280: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 === w1064 (64 bit console) === console.c:2567: Test failed: expected ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE, got 1 console.c:2573: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2580: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:2587: Test failed: expected ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY, got 998 console.c:1270: Test failed: expected VerifyConsoleIoHandle to succeed console.c:1445: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1445: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [3] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [11] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:1689: Test failed: [18] Expected output count to be 3735928559, got 0 console.c:2148: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2214: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1 console.c:2280: Test failed: [7] Expected count to be 0, got 1

2 1

Re: [PATCH] wined3d: Add detection for NVIDIA GTX TITAN Series
by Henri Verbeet 22 Apr '16

22 Apr '16

On 22 April 2016 at 09:55, Alistair Leslie-Hughes <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > @@ -1764,7 +1768,9 @@ cards_nvidia_binary[] = > {"GeForce 830M", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_830M}, /* GeForce 800 - mobile */ > {"GeForce 820M", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_820M}, /* GeForce 800 - mobile */ > {"GTX 780 Ti", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GTX780TI}, /* Geforce 700 - highend */ > - {"GTX TITAN Black", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GTXTITAN}, /* Geforce 700 - highend */ > + {"GTX TITAN", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GTXTITAN}, /* Geforce 700 - highend */ > + {"GTX TITAN Black", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GTXTITANB}, /* Geforce 700 - highend */ > + {"GTX TITAN Z", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GTXTITANZ}, /* Geforce 700 - highend */ That doesn't work. The strings are matched in order, so once "GTX TITAN" is matched, "GTX TITAN Black" and "GTX TITAN Z" won't even be tried.

1 0

Re: Use todo_wine_if() in tests.
by Marvin 22 Apr '16

22 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22441 Your paranoid android. === w7u (32 bit capture) === capture.c:181: Test failed: Position 1719 expected 0 capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 3063 expected 2167 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 3063 expected 2167 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 4407 gap 1792 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 5751 expected 4855 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 7095 expected 5303 === w7pro64 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:424: Test failed: Valid IAudioCaptureClient_GetBuffer returns 08890001 === w8 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 567 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 567 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 3191 gap 2176 capture.c:328: Test failed: GCP 13440 vs. BufferSize 21996 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 4279 expected 3639 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 5303 expected 4087 capture.c:374: Test failed: flags 1 === w864 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:181: Test failed: Position 1015 expected 0 capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1463 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1463 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 3191 gap 1280 capture.c:328: Test failed: GCP 13888 vs. BufferSize 21996 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 4343 expected 3639 capture.c:349: Test failed: flags 1 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 4791 expected 4087 === w1064 (32 bit capture) === capture.c:181: Test failed: Position 1079 expected 0 capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1527 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1527 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 4151 gap 2176 capture.c:328: Test failed: GCP 11648 vs. BufferSize 21996 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 5239 expected 4599 capture.c:349: Test failed: flags 1 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 5687 expected 5047 === w864 (64 bit capture) === capture.c:181: Test failed: Position 1015 expected 0 capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1463 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1463 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 3127 gap 1216 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 4215 expected 3575 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 5303 expected 4023 === w1064 (64 bit capture) === capture.c:181: Test failed: Position 1143 expected 0 capture.c:231: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1591 capture.c:262: Test failed: Position 2167 expected 1591 capture.c:324: Test failed: Position 4215 gap 2176 capture.c:328: Test failed: GCP 11648 vs. BufferSize 21996 capture.c:348: Test failed: Position 5303 expected 4663 capture.c:349: Test failed: flags 1 capture.c:373: Test failed: Position 7287 expected 5111 capture.c:374: Test failed: flags 1

1 0

Re: [1/2] shell32: Check IsWow64Process() before calling Wow64 functions.
by Nikolay Sivov 22 Apr '16

22 Apr '16

On 21.04.2016 3:12, Olivier F. R. Dierick wrote: > See bug 36838 for comments and discussion. > > Supersedes patch submission 121402. > > Better version of the patch. Call IsWow64Process() only once on dll > initialization and setup a global variable. > >>From e7b7317755faff75b960f9143b2195344113a9a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Olivier F. R. Dierick" <o.dierick(a)piezo-forte.be> > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:45:38 +0200 > Subject: shell32: Check IsWow64Process() before calling Wow64 functions. > > Signed-off-by: Olivier F. R. Dierick <o.dierick(a)piezo-forte.be> > --- > dlls/shell32/shell32_main.c | 3 +++ > dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h | 1 + > dlls/shell32/shfldr_unixfs.c | 6 ++++-- > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.c b/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.c > index 74deecd..98e7fbf 100644 > --- a/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.c > +++ b/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.c > @@ -1255,6 +1255,7 @@ HRESULT WINAPI DllGetVersion (DLLVERSIONINFO > *pdvi) > * > */ > HINSTANCE shell32_hInstance = 0; > +BOOL is_wow64 = FALSE; > > > /************************************************************************* > @@ -1277,6 +1278,8 @@ BOOL WINAPI DllMain(HINSTANCE hinstDLL, DWORD > fdwReason, LPVOID fImpLoad) > GetModuleFileNameW(hinstDLL, swShell32Name, MAX_PATH); > swShell32Name[MAX_PATH - 1] = '\0'; > > + if (!IsWow64Process( GetCurrentProcess(), &is_wow64 )) is_wow64 > = FALSE; > + > InitChangeNotifications(); > break; > > diff --git a/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h b/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h > index 492f79f..7a4d9b2 100644 > --- a/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h > +++ b/dlls/shell32/shell32_main.h > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ > */ > extern HMODULE huser32 DECLSPEC_HIDDEN; > extern HINSTANCE shell32_hInstance DECLSPEC_HIDDEN; > +extern BOOL is_wow64 DECLSPEC_HIDDEN; > > /* Iconcache */ > #define INVALID_INDEX -1 > diff --git a/dlls/shell32/shfldr_unixfs.c b/dlls/shell32/shfldr_unixfs.c > index be1ba81..d9b1320 100644 > --- a/dlls/shell32/shfldr_unixfs.c > +++ b/dlls/shell32/shfldr_unixfs.c > @@ -414,7 +414,8 @@ static BOOL UNIXFS_get_unix_path(LPCWSTR pszDosPath, > char *pszCanonicalPath) > dospath_end = dospath + lstrlenW(dospath); > /* search for the most valid UNIX path possible, then append > missing > * path parts */ > - Wow64DisableWow64FsRedirection(&redir); > + if(is_wow64) > + Wow64DisableWow64FsRedirection(&redir); > while(!(pszUnixPath = wine_get_unix_file_name(dospath))){ > if(has_failed){ > *dospath_end = '/'; > @@ -428,7 +429,8 @@ static BOOL UNIXFS_get_unix_path(LPCWSTR pszDosPath, > char *pszCanonicalPath) > } > *dospath_end = '\0'; > } > - Wow64RevertWow64FsRedirection(redir); > + if(is_wow64) > + Wow64RevertWow64FsRedirection(redir); > if(dospath_end < dospath) > return FALSE; > strcat(szPath, pszUnixPath + cDriveSymlinkLen); > Like I said in bug comment, doing this is depending on a side effect. SHFileOperation() could do anything internally, if you want to have consistent ERROR_SUCCESS last error (even though it's kind of wrong to check it, since it returns error code already), why not force it in SHFileOperation() directly? Changing internal path is wrong in my opinion.

3 5

Re: shell32/tests: A spelling fix for an shlfolder ok() message.
by Marvin 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22438 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit shlfolder) === shlfolder.c:1591: Test failed: IShellFolder_GetDisplayNameOf(NULL) failed! hr = 80070057 === w1064 (64 bit shlfolder) === shlfolder.c:1591: Test failed: IShellFolder_GetDisplayNameOf(NULL) failed! hr = 80070057

1 0

Re: urlmon/tests: Fix a spelling error in a uri comment.
by Marvin 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22436 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. === w1064 (64 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42].

1 0

Re: msctf/tests: Spelling fixes for inputprocessor ok() messages.
by Marvin 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22434 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit inputprocessor) === inputprocessor.c:793: Test failed: Deactivation came unexpectedly

1 0

Re: [PATCH 7/8] ddraw: Require exclusive mode only for primary surface flips.
by Marvin 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22426 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 6/8] ddraw: Allow DDSCAPS_FLIP without DDSCAPS_PRIMARYSURFACE.
by Marvin 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22425 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}.

1 0

Re: [PATCH ] msvcr120/tests: Add critical section test.(try 2)
by Piotr Caban 21 Apr '16

21 Apr '16

Hi, On 04/20/16 16:52, YongHao Hu wrote: > try 2: > Rewrite/improve the test according to Piotr's advice. > > Signed-off-by: YongHao Hu <christopherwuy(a)gmail.com> > --- > dlls/msvcr120/tests/msvcr120.c | 272 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 272 insertions(+) > The 64-bit tests are not working on Windows. I didn't look on the patch yet. Thanks, Piotr

1 0