July 2010 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: winex11.drv: Remember last window that had the XIC focus and use it in ToUnicode() to make dead keys work more reliably.
by Alexandre Julliard July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > @@ -2541,9 +2541,13 @@ INT CDECL X11DRV_ToUnicodeEx(UINT virtKey, UINT scanCode, const BYTE *lpKeyState > e.state = 0; > e.type = KeyPress; > > - focus = GetFocus(); > - if (focus) focus = GetAncestor( focus, GA_ROOT ); > - if (!focus) focus = GetActiveWindow(); > + focus = x11drv_thread_data()->last_xic_hwnd; > + if (!focus) > + { > + HWND focus = GetFocus(); > + if (focus) focus = GetAncestor( focus, GA_ROOT ); > + if (!focus) focus = GetActiveWindow(); > + } Have you tested that code path? This can't possibly work. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: wordpad: Allow objects & images to be added with native riched20. (resend)
by Alexandre Julliard July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Dylan Smith <dylan.ah.smith(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -264,3 +267,6 @@ void registry_read_maximized(DWORD*); > void registry_set_filelist(LPCWSTR, HWND); > void registry_set_formatopts_all(DWORD[], DWORD[]); > void registry_set_options(HWND); > + > +/* olecallback.c */ > +HRESULT SetupRichEditOleCallback(HWND hEditorWnd); Please follow the naming convention of the other internal functions; in particular, don't name an internal function in a way that looks like a Windows API. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: include/wine/debug.h: ... and uses of '_ONCE' variants.
by Max TenEyck Woodbury July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Please discard this series of patches. They will not work with compilers that do not support macros with variable numbers of arguments. While most modern compilers do provide variadic macros, some older compilers do not. To do this right a non-intuitive syntax would be required. (i.e. 'FIXME_ONCE((...));'.) Also, the current implementation is imperfect. There should be a test in 'configure' for the various kinds of variadic macro support and the conditionals should be based on what configure finds, not on the use of any particular compiler. -Max

2 3

[1\4]wined3d: Extend IWineD3D_GetAdapterDisplayMode with an extra paramater to pass back some extra adapter info.
by Louis Lenders July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

ok, now i really need a break, the test i wrote 10 minutes ago had a mistake, IDirect3D9Ex::GetAdapterDisplayModeEx _does_ allow D3DDISPLAYROTATION pointer to be NULL. I'll just send the test to wine-patches. Again sorry for the noise

1 0

[1\4]wined3d: Extend IWineD3D_GetAdapterDisplayMode with an extra paramater to pass back some extra adapter info.
by Louis Lenders July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Hi Henri >>I mean that I don't think the "rotation" argument to >> GetAdapterDisplayMode() should be allowed to be NULL. >I tested IDirect3D9Ex::GetAdapterDisplayModeEx and that allows pRotation to >be NULL, hmm, I remembered to have tested this, but to be sure I tested again a few minutes ago, and looks you were right in the end. I guess i'll have to rework the patch series again. sorry for the noise

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] msvcp90/tests: Added allocator<char> tests
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

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=3704 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

1 0

Re: shlwapi: Improved UrlCanonicalizeW implementation
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

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=3702 Your paranoid android. === W98SE (32 bit url) === Failure running script in VM: Exceeded timeout limit of 315 sec === WVISTAADM (32 bit url) === Timeout === W2K8SE (32 bit url) === Timeout === W7PRO (32 bit url) === Timeout === W7PROX64 (32 bit url) === Timeout === W7PROX64 (64 bit url) === Timeout

1 0

Re: ddraw: Allow creating back buffer for pre-DirectX 7 interfaces. (try 2)
by Oldřich Jedlička July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Hi all, I've made one discovery - the explicit BACKBUFFER creation (as shown in logs) works only for IID_IDirectDraw interface, not for any newer (on my Windows XP). I will do some more testing, add tests into a separate patch and send it afterwards. Regards, Oldrich. On Wednesday 21 July 2010 20:51:49 Oldřich Jedlička wrote: > Old DirectX interfaces allowed creation of explicit back buffers, so move > the restrictive check to DirectX 7 implementation. > > This fixes bug #9008. > --- > dlls/ddraw/ddraw.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/ddraw/ddraw.c b/dlls/ddraw/ddraw.c > index e55ac5b..9f13c8b 100644 > --- a/dlls/ddraw/ddraw.c > +++ b/dlls/ddraw/ddraw.c > @@ -2967,7 +2967,7 @@ static HRESULT > ddraw_create_gdi_swapchain(IDirectDrawImpl *ddraw, IDirectDrawSur * > DDERR_* if an error occurs > * > > ************************************************************************** > ***/ -static HRESULT WINAPI ddraw7_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw7 *iface, > +static HRESULT WINAPI CreateSurface(IDirectDraw7 *iface, > DDSURFACEDESC2 *DDSD, IDirectDrawSurface7 **Surf, IUnknown > *UnkOuter) { > IDirectDrawImpl *This = (IDirectDrawImpl *)iface; > @@ -3030,8 +3030,8 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw7_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw7 *iface, return DDERR_NOEXCLUSIVEMODE; > } > > - if(DDSD->ddsCaps.dwCaps & (DDSCAPS_FRONTBUFFER | DDSCAPS_BACKBUFFER)) > { - WARN("Application tried to create an explicit front or back > buffer\n"); + if(DDSD->ddsCaps.dwCaps & DDSCAPS_FRONTBUFFER) { > + WARN("Application tried to create an explicit front buffer\n"); > LeaveCriticalSection(&ddraw_cs); > return DDERR_INVALIDCAPS; > } > @@ -3391,6 +3391,27 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw7_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw7 *iface, return hr; > } > > +static HRESULT WINAPI ddraw7_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw7 *iface, > + DDSURFACEDESC2 *surface_desc, IDirectDrawSurface7 **surface, > IUnknown *outer_unknown) +{ > + TRACE("iface %p, surface_desc %p, surface %p, outer_unknown %p.\n", > + iface, surface_desc, surface, outer_unknown); > + > + if(surface_desc->ddsCaps.dwCaps & (DDSCAPS_FRONTBUFFER | > DDSCAPS_BACKBUFFER)) + { > + if (TRACE_ON(ddraw)) > + { > + TRACE(" (%p) Requesting surface desc :\n", iface); > + DDRAW_dump_surface_desc(surface_desc); > + } > + > + WARN("Application tried to create an explicit front or back > buffer\n"); + return DDERR_INVALIDCAPS; > + } > + > + return CreateSurface(iface, surface_desc, surface, outer_unknown); > +} > + > static HRESULT WINAPI ddraw4_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw4 *iface, > DDSURFACEDESC2 *surface_desc, IDirectDrawSurface4 **surface, > IUnknown *outer_unknown) { > @@ -3401,7 +3422,7 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw4_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw4 *iface, TRACE("iface %p, surface_desc > %p, surface %p, outer_unknown %p.\n", iface, surface_desc, surface, > outer_unknown); > > - hr = ddraw7_CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, surface_desc, > (IDirectDrawSurface7 **)surface, outer_unknown); + hr = > CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, surface_desc, (IDirectDrawSurface7 > **)surface, outer_unknown); impl = (IDirectDrawSurfaceImpl *)*surface; > if (SUCCEEDED(hr) && impl) > { > @@ -3425,7 +3446,7 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw3_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw3 *iface, TRACE("iface %p, surface_desc > %p, surface %p, outer_unknown %p.\n", iface, surface_desc, surface, > outer_unknown); > > - hr = ddraw7_CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 > *)surface_desc, &surface7, outer_unknown); + hr = > CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 *)surface_desc, > &surface7, outer_unknown); if (FAILED(hr)) > { > *surface = NULL; > @@ -3453,7 +3474,7 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw2_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw2 *iface, TRACE("iface %p, surface_desc > %p, surface %p, outer_unknown %p.\n", iface, surface_desc, surface, > outer_unknown); > > - hr = ddraw7_CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 > *)surface_desc, &surface7, outer_unknown); + hr = > CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 *)surface_desc, > &surface7, outer_unknown); if (FAILED(hr)) > { > *surface = NULL; > @@ -3483,7 +3504,7 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI > ddraw1_CreateSurface(IDirectDraw *iface, /* Remove front buffer flag, this > causes failure in v7, and its added to normal * primaries anyway. */ > surface_desc->ddsCaps.dwCaps &= ~DDSCAPS_FRONTBUFFER; > - hr = ddraw7_CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 > *)surface_desc, &surface7, outer_unknown); + hr = > CreateSurface((IDirectDraw7 *)ddraw, (DDSURFACEDESC2 *)surface_desc, > &surface7, outer_unknown); if (FAILED(hr)) > { > *surface = NULL;

2 2

Re: oleaut32: Remove the ignored common resource attributes.
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

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=3687 Your paranoid android. === W98SE (32 bit) === No test summary line found === 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 === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: user32: Remove the ignored common resource attributes.
by testbot＠testbot.winehq.org July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

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=3686 Your paranoid android. === W98SE (32 bit) === No test summary line found === 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 === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

1 0