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

wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M
by Kim Malmo 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

Thanks Caron, that's exactly the kind of feedback I wanted. I now feel really stupid. The spacing and line breaks comes from copy/pasting the patch into an email, as I couldn't get git-send-email to work. Apparently, it has it's own package in Ubuntu. That's causing the linebreaks. The spacing I cannot explain, but ofcourse both come out clean when using git-send-email. Thanks for that. That's still no excuse for sending a patch with bad formatting though. Now I just have to figure out how to properly use git-send-email so I can add the comments I want. I'm new to git. Do I need to sign off my own patches? Just curious how it works, I had imagined one of the proper developers had to sign it off. -- Actually, you sent it to the right place. There are some things you should have a look at that my eyes are drawn to. First, when reviewed here, the patch has odd line breaks and spacing: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121371 It's also missing your signed-off-by line. You can read about how to add that here: https://wiki.winehq.org/Submitting_Patches Your patch should come through clean and match the surrounding style. I had a patch accepted adding the same number of lines in the same general places, pay close attention to how the two differ in appearance: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121336 I'm looking at those patches simply by going to this page to make sure everything "looks" okay: https://source.winehq.org/patches/ Note the red "X" indicating the missing sign-off next to your patch. You would do yourself many favors by using git send-email to send patches or in the very least, take a moment to create a patch and check it over once, twice, three times, before sending. I commit to my local tree and then I do: git format-patch origin and compare what's going on and then I make sure Wine still builds after my changes. I catch a lot of mistakes that way (like missing a comma...). Thank you for sending a patch and following up on it. Others might have more feedback for you. -Caron

2 1

Re: [PATCH] Added Nvidia GT 9700M
by Henri Verbeet 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

On 18 April 2016 at 18:39, Kim Malmo <berencamlost(a)msn.com> wrote: > From: Kim Malmo <kimmalmo(a)protonmail.ch> > > --- > dlls/wined3d/directx.c | 2 ++ > dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) > You're missing the Signed-off-by line. Passing -s to format-patch will add it. > + {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9700M, "NVIDIA GeForce 9700M", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, Is that the correct description string for the card? I'm only finding references to the 9700M GT and 9700M GTS.

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm: Implement IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.
by Henri Verbeet 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

On 17 April 2016 at 22:57, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta(a)gmail.com> wrote: > @@ -1054,10 +1058,50 @@ static ULONG WINAPI d3drm3_Release(IDirect3DRM3 *iface) > static HRESULT WINAPI d3drm3_CreateObject(IDirect3DRM3 *iface, > REFCLSID clsid, IUnknown *outer, REFIID iid, void **out) > { > - FIXME("iface %p, clsid %s, outer %p, iid %s, out %p stub!\n", > + void *object_struct; ... > + if (IsEqualGUID(clsid, &CLSID_CDirect3DRMTexture)) > + { > + if (FAILED(hr = d3drm_texture_create((struct d3drm_texture **)&object_struct))) > + { > + *out = NULL; > + return hr; > + } > + object = (IUnknown *)&((struct d3drm_texture *)object_struct)->IDirect3DRMTexture3_iface; > + } Why do you need "object_struct"?

2 8

Re: ddraw [v3]: Move ComputeSphereVisibility tests to ddraw7
by Henri Verbeet 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

On 18 April 2016 at 09:02, David Adam <david.adam.cnrs(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thos one with my valid email address. > Please try to match the structure and style of the other tests in ddraw7.c, and please use git send-email for submitting patches.

1 0

Re: [PATCH] d3dx9: Don't complain when overwriting effect object id 0.
by Matteo Bruni 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

2016-04-18 15:26 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > Matteo, > > I must be missing something, but don't you forget to free the > object->data when it is reallocated at least for object id 0 when it is > not FIXME anymore? I suppose you don't but I looked through several > times and do not see how it can be freed when it was allocated previously. > > Regards, > Paul. No, you're right, I forgot the free altogether. Let's drop this patch, unless it's too late. I'll send a fix either way.

1 2

wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M
by Kim Malmo 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

I posted this one to wine-patches, I realize I may have sent it to the wrong mailing list. I would probably want some feedback on this one, as it's basically a dirty hack I put together. Critisism welcome. Posted here: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2016-April/149298.html wined3d: Add Nvidia GT 9700M Bug: https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36031 --- dlls/wined3d/directx.c | 2 ++ dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/dlls/wined3d/directx.c b/dlls/wined3d/directx.c index 8358930..6b115d3 100644 --- a/dlls/wined3d/directx.c +++ b/dlls/wined3d/directx.c @@ -1230,6 +1230,7 @@ static const struct gpu_description gpu_description_table[] = {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9400GT, "NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 256 }, {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9500GT, "NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 256 }, {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9600GT, "NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 384 }, + {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9700M, "NVIDIA GeForce 9700M", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9800GT, "NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_210, "NVIDIA GeForce 210", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, {HW_VENDOR_NVIDIA, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GT220, "NVIDIA GeForce GT 220", DRIVER_NVIDIA_GEFORCE8, 512 }, @@ -1819,6 +1820,7 @@ cards_nvidia_binary[] = {"GTS 150", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9800GT}, /* Geforce 9 - highend / Geforce 200 - midend */ {"9800", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9800GT}, /* Geforce 9 - highend / Geforce 200 - midend */ {"GT 140", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9600GT}, /* Geforce 9 - midend */ + {"9700M", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9700M}, /* Geforce 9 - midend */ {"9600", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9600GT}, /* Geforce 9 - midend */ {"GT 130", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9500GT}, /* Geforce 9 - midend low / Geforce 200 - low */ {"GT 120", CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9500GT}, /* Geforce 9 - midend low / Geforce 200 - low */ diff --git a/dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h b/dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h index 24515da..95dd88b 100644 --- a/dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h +++ b/dlls/wined3d/wined3d_private.h @@ -1739,6 +1739,7 @@ enum wined3d_pci_device CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9400GT = 0x042c, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9500GT = 0x0640, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9600GT = 0x0622, + CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9700M = 0x064a, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_9800GT = 0x0614, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_210 = 0x0a23, CARD_NVIDIA_GEFORCE_GT220 = 0x0a20, -- 1.9.1

2 1

Re: riched20: Use SetRect instead of open coding it.
by Huw Davies 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:11, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)redhat.de> wrote: > --- a/dlls/riched20/paint.c > +++ b/dlls/riched20/paint.c > @@ -617,10 +617,8 @@ static void ME_DrawParaDecoration(ME_Context* c, ME_Paragraph* para, int y, RECT > MoveToEx(c->hDC, c->pt.x, y + bounds->top, NULL); > LineTo(c->hDC, c->pt.x, y + para->nHeight - bounds->bottom); > if (border_details[idx].dble) { > - rc.left = c->pt.x + 1; > - rc.right = rc.left + border_width; > - rc.top = y + bounds->top; > - rc.bottom = y + para->nHeight - bounds->bottom; > + SetRect(&rc, c->pt.x + 1, y + bounds->top, rc.left + border_width, > + y + para->nHeight - bounds->bottom); This is using rc.left uninitialised. Huw.

2 2

Re: user32/tests: Use SetRect instead of open coding it.
by Marvin 18 Apr '16

18 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=22284 Your paranoid android. === w8 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2485: Test failed: Waiting for the WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message timed out sysparams.c:2496: Test failed: Set bpp 32, but WM_DISPLAYCHANGE reported bpp -1 === w864 (32 bit sysparams) === sysparams.c:2485: Test failed: Waiting for the WM_DISPLAYCHANGE message timed out sysparams.c:2496: Test failed: Set bpp 32, but WM_DISPLAYCHANGE reported bpp -1

2 1

Re: wbemprox/tests: Add initial tests for ASSOCIATORS query.
by Hans Leidekker 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

On Sun, 2016-04-17 at 21:03 +0200, Sebastian Lackner wrote: > +static void test_associators( IWbemServices *services ) > +{ > + static const WCHAR query1[] = > + {'A','S','S','O','C','I','A','T','O','R','S',' ','O','F',' ','{','W','i','n','3','2','_', > + 'v','L','o','g','i','c','a','l','D','i','s','k','.', 'D','e','v','i','c','e','I','D','=','"','C',':','"','}',0}; Should that be 'Win32_LogicalDisk'?

2 1

Re: ddraw [v3]: Move ComputeSphereVisibility tests to ddraw7
by Marvin 18 Apr '16

18 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=22283 Your paranoid android. === 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 d3d) === d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 2031 differences at 0 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 518 differences at 1 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 138 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 46 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2510: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 257 differences d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 256 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 64 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 16 differences at 4 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 4 differences at 5 level

1 0