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

Re: [4/4] ntdll: Do not update iosb.Status after FSCTL_PIPE_LISTEN call.
by Marvin 07 Apr '16

07 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=21958 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w864 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231

1 0

Re: [2/4] ntdll/tests: Add tests for iosb.Status value after pending FSCTL_PIPE_LISTEN call.
by Marvin 07 Apr '16

07 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=21955 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w864 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231

2 1

Re: [1/4] ntdll/tests: Fix some test failures on Win 8+.
by Marvin 07 Apr '16

07 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=21954 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (32 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w864 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231 === w1064 (64 bit pipe) === pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 1, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 2, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 0, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 80000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: 40000000, GetLastError: 231 pipe.c:240: Test failed: CreateFile failed for sharing 3, access: c0000000, GetLastError: 231

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] d3drm/tests: Add tests for IDirect3DRM*::CreateObject.
by Stefan Dösinger 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, Some curiosities: Am 2016-04-03 um 20:04 schrieb Aaryaman Vasishta: > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(tests) / sizeof(*tests); ++i) > + { > + hr = IDirect3DRM_CreateObject(d3drm1, tests[i].clsid, NULL, NULL, NULL); > + todo_wine ok(hr == D3DRMERR_BADVALUE, "Test %u: expected hr == D3DRMERR_BADVALUE, got %#x.\n", i, hr); What does clsid != NULL, refiid == NULL, output object != NULL do? I guess that clsid is the object you create, and iid is the interface to that object that is returned. So I guess in theory you can pass clsid = IDirect3DRMTexture3, iid = IDirect3DRMTexture and you'd get the same result as creating a d3drmtexture3 object and then calling QI(IDirect3DRMTexture). It might be worth adding explicit tests for this in future patches. (And if you use aggregation you'll want to pass iid == IUnknown, otherwise there's no way you get the inner IUnknown and will never be able to release the object) > + ref2 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm1); > + ok(ref2 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref2 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref2 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref2); > + IUnknown_Release(unknown); > + ref2 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm1); > + ok(ref2 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref2 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref2 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref2); So what will increment the refcount? InitFrom*? > + hr = IDirect3DRM2_CreateObject(d3drm2, tests[i].clsid, NULL, tests[i].iid, (void **)&unknown); > + ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "Test %u: expected hr == D3DRM_OK, got %#x.\n", i, hr); > + ref2 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm1); > + ok(ref2 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref2 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref2 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref2); > + ref3 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm2); > + ok(ref3 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref3 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref3 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref3); > ... > + > + hr = IDirect3DRM3_CreateObject(d3drm3, tests[i].clsid, NULL, tests[i].iid, (void **)&unknown); > + ok(SUCCEEDED(hr), "Test %u: expected hr == D3DRM_OK, got %#x.\n", i, hr); > + ref2 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm1); > + ok(ref2 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref2 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref2 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref2); > + ref3 = get_refcount((IUnknown *)d3drm3); > + ok(ref3 == ref1, "Test %u: expected ref3 == ref1, got ref1 = %u, ref3 = %u.\n", i, ref1, ref3); Since you're testing the refcounts of 1,2 and 1,3 you might as well test the refcounts of all interfaces in all 3 versions. Cheers, Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXAXWIAAoJEN0/YqbEcdMwbkIQAI9ItseZE8bef+z24Cisul9g UYxXhve3Ll9Pz5vVB+jG0H0F5iPk4vdmoHIwsJgd018xBnwXc1C0+QkTknsTHcfI LOb1l4PbjherhDNDn+4t95Hy3fdHKrutFkMhYp73m1+0V5GwY7MANCmIxu4b/z+b nW545EvcpPGluZXPcPyWiwGi9qB33VkGRvDkUpii8qQtwC+vsrDuerWcT2V7fbXj 2R0O9QSuvlbd83p16i3nVx2R8ZQRweYQoSKKdLBca07cIt3/xW6lBJOz34yUmupE 5PdKK0wOPWMKXVCuAplWuDGrvgCOtyMcIB1FmsUfxPfLjonfX3UeXoWfTwMmrMBo XkzgZj8S6JTPK2qOegzg8nGz8FZXvsvWkUZWzCtypuuAQ3rGn5p940JwIu3pW+Cq 4Z3K+r7Ka9lYxSJfiliNyhqPIlrGytHbrpN0aTmWJGn79Jqs7Ffd01+ujOQ2NlOf POWffmglWRHoYDZjSOS2JaL597hhna7ktM0xlhTWHT7HFgRB4oCV2DJAHmSeZUME egudzSfSbRgB9u8bQQpfrYr/kV6MJ0OE2d3VoTn8RRJ3RJL5UFp08N7m+YXkQW9T LAzfiyaAjNILLTCj4tpqjEikH2ftGE/hBH+tInXTKlwnf1NyB6iz5/1+dAm+7JYk MKdVO/nQCpGffRqmYNtG =H6sj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [PATCH] wined3d: Add Nvidia GeForce 820M
by Henri Verbeet 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

On 6 April 2016 at 16:06, Caron Wills <caron(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > for bug 40348 > This ends up looking like this on the patches site: https://source.winehq.org/patches/data/121067. That's actually a valid patch, but it's not exactly ideal. Could you please use git send-email to send patches in the future?

1 0

Re: [PATCH] msvcr120: Add remainder (try3)
by Piotr Caban 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

Hi Daniel, On 04/06/16 01:00, Daniel Lehman wrote: > Try2: handle y==0 > Try3: add tests and error handling for both x and y, but I have a question: > > Based on the tests, remainder on 32-bit Windows differs from 64-bit Windows in errno handling. Other math functions, like acosf, behave the same - if tests for it were added, the current Wine implementation would differ from 32-bit Windows > > The #ifdef is admittedly ugly but makes it match both Windows 32-bit and 64-bit > > is it preferable to match Windows exactly? or could I drop the #ifdef and use the 64-bit errno handling, like acosf? could I skip the tests that differ on 32-bit? It depends on the function. In this case I don't think anything bad will happen if errno is set on invalid input even so it's not on Windows. I think it's OK to ignore the difference in this case and run some tests only in 32-bit or 64-bit environment. If you decide to be not fully compatible with native - please leave a comment in code. Currently the tests are not working on wine (both i386 and x86_64). Thanks, Piotr

2 2

Re: [PATCH 5/5] wined3d: Alpha test emulation for core profile contexts.
by Henri Verbeet 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

On 31 March 2016 at 19:51, Matteo Bruni <mbruni(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > + shader_addline(buffer, "if (alpha_test)\n"); > + if (alpha_func != WINED3D_CMP_NEVER) > + shader_addline(buffer, " if (!(%s[0].a %s alpha_ref))\n", > + get_fragment_output(gl_info), comparison_operator[alpha_func - WINED3D_CMP_NEVER]); > + shader_addline(buffer, " discard;\n"); Is there really an advantage to having the "alpha_test" uniform instead of just mapping disabled alpha test to WINED3D_CMP_ALWAYS? > @@ -973,6 +981,7 @@ struct ps_compile_args { > WORD texcoords_initialized; /* MAX_TEXTURES, 8 */ > BOOL pointsprite; > BOOL flatshading; > + enum wined3d_cmp_func alpha_func; > }; > > enum fog_src_type { > @@ -2022,6 +2031,7 @@ struct ffp_frag_settings > unsigned char pointsprite : 1; > unsigned char flatshading : 1; > unsigned char padding : 5; > + enum wined3d_cmp_func alpha_func; "alpha_func" only needs 4 bits (3 if you just mask the 4th bit), so would still fit in the padding. That applies somewhat to struct ps_compile_args as well, although we may care less there.

2 3

Re: [v9 6/6] d3dx9: Implement setting named shader constants in effect.
by Matteo Bruni 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

2016-04-01 13:21 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: A few nitpicks: > +HRESULT d3dx_set_shader_const_fxlc(struct ID3DXEffectImpl *effect, struct d3dx_pass *pass, > + struct d3dx_parameter *param, BOOL vs) > +{ > + IDirect3DDevice9 *device = effect->device; > + HRESULT hr, ret; > + struct d3dx_parameter **params; > + D3DXCONSTANT_DESC *cdesc; > + unsigned int parameters_count; > + unsigned int i, j; > + > + if (!param->param_eval) > + { > + FIXME("Preshader structure is null.\n"); > + return D3DERR_INVALIDCALL; > + } The name of the function and the FIXME above seem somewhat mixed up WRT the naming change we had earlier. > + if (FAILED(hr = d3dx_param_eval_set_shader_constants(device, param->param_eval))) > + return hr; > + params = param->param_eval->shader_inputs.inputs_param; > + cdesc = param->param_eval->shader_inputs.inputs; > + parameters_count = param->param_eval->shader_inputs.input_count; > + ret = D3D_OK; > + for (i = 0; i < parameters_count; i++) > + { > + if (params[i] && params[i]->class == D3DXPC_OBJECT && (params[i]->type == D3DXPT_SAMPLER > + || params[i]->type == D3DXPT_SAMPLER1D || params[i]->type == D3DXPT_SAMPLER2D > + || params[i]->type == D3DXPT_SAMPLER3D || params[i]->type == D3DXPT_SAMPLERCUBE)) Line continuations should have 8 spaces indentation. You can also replace i++ with ++i like in the other patches. > + TRACE("setting %u consts at %u.\n", n, start); Capitalize "setting", spell out "constants".

1 0

Re: [v9 5/6] d3dx9: Implement array selectors in effect.
by Matteo Bruni 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

2016-04-01 13:21 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > case ST_ARRAY_SELECTOR: > - FIXME("Array selector.\n"); > - break; > + { > + struct d3dx_parameter array_idx_par; I'd call that array_idx_param, for consistency. Also you can probably declare it static const and initialize it just once. > + if (FAILED(hr = d3dx9_get_param_value_ptr(effect, pass, state, &param_value, &param))) > + /* Native d3dx returns OK from BeginPass or Commit involving out of bound array > + access, and does not touch affected state. */ Nitpicks: please spell D3D_OK in full, boundS, drop the comma. Usually we put a '*' at the start of following comment lines for multiline comments, aligned with the '*' from the first line.

1 0

Re: [v9 1/6] d3dx9: Implement preshader parsing.
by Matteo Bruni 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

2016-04-01 13:21 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > Signed-off-by: Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com> Looks good! Just a few tiny comments: > +static void dump_bytecode(void *data, unsigned int size) > +{ > + unsigned int *bytecode = (unsigned int *)data; The cast is unnecessary. > +static unsigned int *find_bytecode_comment(unsigned int *ptr, unsigned int count, > + unsigned int fourcc, unsigned int *size) > +{ > + /* Provide at least one value in comment section on non-NULL return. */ > + while (count > 2 && (*ptr & 0xffff) == 0xfffe) > + { > + unsigned int section_size; > + > + section_size = (*ptr >> 16); > + if (!section_size || section_size + 1 > count) > + break; I guess a WARN() would be nice there. Also probably an "explicit" return NULL is a bit nicer. > +static HRESULT parse_preshader(struct d3dx_preshader *pres, unsigned int *ptr, unsigned int count, struct d3dx9_base_effect *base) Try to stay below 120 characters per line (targeting ~100). > + p = find_bytecode_comment(ptr + 1, count - 1, FOURCC_CLIT, &section_size); > + if (p) > + { > + const_count = *p++; > + if (const_count > (section_size - 1) / (sizeof(double) / sizeof(unsigned int))) > + { > + WARN("Byte code buffer ends unexpectedly.\n"); > + return D3DXERR_INVALIDDATA; > + } > + dconst = (double *)p; > + } > + else > + { > + const_count = 0; > + dconst = NULL; > + } > + TRACE("%u double constants.\n", const_count); > + > + p = find_bytecode_comment(ptr + 1, count - 1, FOURCC_FXLC, &section_size); You could decrement "count" by the amount of section_size before looking for the next comment. It probably makes sense to set *size to 0 at the beginning of find_bytecode_comment() so that you can unconditionally decrement here. > + count = byte_code_size / sizeof(unsigned int); > + if (!byte_code || !count) > + { > + *peval_out = NULL; > + return; > + } It just occurred to me, you could also check for byte_code_size % sizeof(unsigned int) while you're at it.

1 0