February 2009 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Is the test.winehq.org front page too pessimistic?

by James Hawkins

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> We should leave the failing files percentage up (note the name change) >> and add a failing tests percentage next to it. The failing tests >> percentage should be total_test_failures / total_tests_run. > > That's not a useful number, many files run a lot of tests, of which a > huge majority always succeeds. Having a single failure among 10,000 > tests means that the test failed, and it's something bad that should be > taken care of. Showing that as a 99.99% success would be very misleading. > Ok you're right. I wasn't thinking on that scale. I assumed we had more than 0.01% failures. -- James Hawkins

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Is the test.winehq.org front page too pessimistic?

by Alexandre Julliard

James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> writes: > We should leave the failing files percentage up (note the name change) > and add a failing tests percentage next to it. The failing tests > percentage should be total_test_failures / total_tests_run. That's not a useful number, many files run a lot of tests, of which a huge majority always succeeds. Having a single failure among 10,000 tests means that the test failed, and it's something bad that should be taken care of. Showing that as a 99.99% success would be very misleading. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Wine64 : Trying to load PE image for unsupported architecture (I386)

by Alexandre Julliard

Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+win(a)mega-nerd.com> writes: > While I expected it to not work with my Win64 program I was a little > surprised that when running a WIn32 program I got: > > Trying to load PE image for unsupported architecture (I386) > > I realise that the Win64 stuff is experimental but I'm curions, in > the longer term is it expected that one executable will be able to > run both Win32 and Win64 executables? Not really, you'll of course still need to build a full 32-bit version of Wine, the 64-bit Wine will never be able to run 32-bit apps. What needs to be improved is that the 64-bit loader should be able to forward automatically to the 32-bit one when encountering a 32-bit app. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Is the test.winehq.org front page too pessimistic?

by James Hawkins

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The front page of test.winehq.org shows statistics about failed tests, > but it doesn't seem to take into account the number of individual > tests that passed and failed, rather the number of files that had any > failures. > > So, for example, about a week ago I got a fix committed for some > failing mapi32 tests. Looking at the machines with test failures, > before the fix was committed, 139 tests were run, with 134 of them > failing, whereas after the fix was committed, the same number of tests > were run, with only 6 of them failing. Nonetheless, the 4th of > February shows a higher failure rate (14.6%) than the 3rd of February > (12.4%). > > I know other tests could have started failing in the interim, but it > seems like we've been putting a fair amount of effort into reducing > test failures lately, while the percent of failed tests isn't going > down, at least not on the main page. If you look at a particular > day's results, the numbers look a bit better over time. > > I'm not sending a patch, because there may be different opinions on > this. That is, perhaps some people like to see a statistic on the > number of files with failing tests on any machine, which the front > page appears to show, while others may like to see the number of > failures in a particular file, which a day's results show. My own > opinion is that it's hard to get motivated to fix something without > some sort of positive feedback for it, so changing the front page > would be better. > > My own feeling is that there are far fewer failing tests now than > there used to be, and I'd sure like to see that reflected somewhere at > a quick glance. Thoughts? > We should leave the failing files percentage up (note the name change) and add a failing tests percentage next to it. The failing tests percentage should be total_test_failures / total_tests_run. -- James Hawkins

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Is the test.winehq.org front page too pessimistic?

by John Klehm

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My own feeling is that there are far fewer failing tests now than > there used to be, and I'd sure like to see that reflected somewhere at > a quick glance. Thoughts? Maybe a test.winehq.org/trends page showing some nice (hopefully upwards) trend graphs of number of succeeding tests? --John Klehm

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: An idea for the appdb

by John Klehm

Please correct me if I'm wrong but before we go about collecting all this information wouldn't it be better to have some compatibility framework in Wine that could actually make use of it? Otherwise we're collecting a lot of information that is of little immediate use. In other words we'd have somewhere for this flood to go before we open the dam? Regards, --John Klehm

Feb. 11, 2009

Is the test.winehq.org front page too pessimistic?

by Juan Lang

The front page of test.winehq.org shows statistics about failed tests, but it doesn't seem to take into account the number of individual tests that passed and failed, rather the number of files that had any failures. So, for example, about a week ago I got a fix committed for some failing mapi32 tests. Looking at the machines with test failures, before the fix was committed, 139 tests were run, with 134 of them failing, whereas after the fix was committed, the same number of tests were run, with only 6 of them failing. Nonetheless, the 4th of February shows a higher failure rate (14.6%) than the 3rd of February (12.4%). I know other tests could have started failing in the interim, but it seems like we've been putting a fair amount of effort into reducing test failures lately, while the percent of failed tests isn't going down, at least not on the main page. If you look at a particular day's results, the numbers look a bit better over time. I'm not sending a patch, because there may be different opinions on this. That is, perhaps some people like to see a statistic on the number of files with failing tests on any machine, which the front page appears to show, while others may like to see the number of failures in a particular file, which a day's results show. My own opinion is that it's hard to get motivated to fix something without some sort of positive feedback for it, so changing the front page would be better. My own feeling is that there are far fewer failing tests now than there used to be, and I'd sure like to see that reflected somewhere at a quick glance. Thoughts? --Juan

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: An idea for the appdb

by Luke Benstead

2009/2/11 Matt 'Murph' Finnicum <mattfinn(a)gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM, <alex(a)centroidcafe.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:03:21 -0700 (GMT-07:00), James Mckenzie >> <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>Automatic submission of test data could be a very handy tool. >>>> >>> This would be great, but as previously discussed, who would maintain this >>> information >>> and verify it is correct and proper? Although some features would be >>> 'neet to have' >>> it is best to leave them on the drawing board for now and work on the >>> various bugs >>> that require workarounds. This is because of two limited resources: >>> People and Time. >>> If you have the skills to implement this feature, go ahead and try on a >>> limited database >>> on your home system. You would quickly see that we have about 10,000 >>> applications >>> in the AppDB and there are many versions of Wine. >> >> Ten thousand records in a database is not very significant. My day job is >> DBA, so I might have the skills to tackle something like this (at least in >> part). >> >>> This gives you some >>> starting point >>> of the size of this task. Supporting a few applications would lead to >> the >>> 'why isn't >>> my wiz-bang application there' and a great deal of discussion, wasting >>> more resources. >>> >>> Of course, if you could produce something that would emulate the "Report >>> to ...." >>> functionality that is in popular use, that would help keep the AppDB and >>> Bugzilla >>> up to date as long as a search capability were added to sweep these >>> systems for >>> pre-existing entries related to the current problem. >>> >> >> This was what I was thinking. Microsoft does this in Windows, and they are >> the reference implementation of the Wine API. If collecting this data helps >> M$ debug Windows, then I would think it would certainly help Wine too. >> >>> Just my opinion, but this project is not worth attempting at this point. >>> >> >> If that is the consensus, then I won't bother looking into this further. >> However, it seems like there is currently a movement to rework AppDB >> anyway, so why not consider this idea now, so it could be factored into >> those plans? >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> > > Why not just write a external utility (perhaps with a bit of support > from AppDB for mapping exe's to applications) so that a GUI user could > just right click->AppDB and have their browser fire up? That'd be > neat, much less complex, and completely non-invasive. > --Murph > > > We'd still need some way to map the exe to the app in the appdb, which brings us back to my checksum idea. Is there any chance that the appdb could allow for application checksums to be stored alongside version entries? Even if nothing is done with the information in the near future, it could prove useful. Luke.

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Wine64 : Trying to load PE image for unsupported architecture (I386)

by David Gerard

2009/2/11 Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+win(a)mega-nerd.com>: > I realise that the Win64 stuff is experimental but I'm curions, in > the longer term is it expected that one executable will be able to > run both Win32 and Win64 executables? Not yet. You're welcome to write it though ;-) - d.

Feb. 11, 2009

Re: Wine64 : Trying to load PE image for unsupported architecture (I386)

by Austin English

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+win(a)mega-nerd.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I build Wine64 using the instructions here: > > http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64 > > While I expected it to not work with my Win64 program I was a little > surprised that when running a WIn32 program I got: > > Trying to load PE image for unsupported architecture (I386) > > I realise that the Win64 stuff is experimental but I'm curions, in > the longer term is it expected that one executable will be able to > run both Win32 and Win64 executables? > > Cheers, > Erik > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Erik de Castro Lopo > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > J. Headley: "God, root, what is difference ?" > G. Haverland: "God can change the byte order on the CPU, root can't." > > > That functionality has not yet been implemented. Build 32bit wine for that. -- -Austin

Feb. 11, 2009