February 2011 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: jscript: Fixed corner cases in parseInt implementation

by Marvin

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=9558 Your paranoid android. === 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

Feb. 28, 2011

Re: Valgrind --malloc-fill=A5 --free-fill=DE crashes Wine

by Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle＠t-systems.com

Hi, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> It turns out that malloc-fill is harmless, -free-fill causes havoc currently. >It's most likely a valgrind/wine bug, does this patch work? Yes, that did the job with wine-1.3.12-14. So is it a Valgrind or a Wine bug? Thank you, Jörg Höhle

Feb. 28, 2011

Re: Please help me with document extraction.

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 02/27/2011 05:55 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > ... If you want to prove me wrong, start writing it. Once you > have properly documented 100 functions, we can discuss what > extra infrastructure is needed for the remaining 50,000. > Deal on the 100! Max

Feb. 28, 2011

Re: Please help me with document extraction.

by Alexandre Julliard

Max TenEyck Woodbury <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net> writes: > I'd also like clarification on why you think it does _not_ belong in > the source code. Some projects insist that documentation _has_ to be > part of the source code so that it will be properly maintained. That's because in most projects the API is defined by the implementation, and when you change the code you want to update the documentation accordingly. The Windows API is defined by Microsoft and is independent of the Wine source. If you want to store it along with the code you'd have to put it inside the Windows source. The other reason is that a decent documentation of the Windows API would be huge; look at how much information there is on MSDN, and that's still incomplete. It's completely impossible to maintain something of that size in the middle of the source code. As long as it's inside the source, it will just be one or two sentences per function, and maybe a list of parameters. That's not useful documentation. The reality is that this is not going to happen; nobody is going to invest the time to write real documentation for even a subset of the API. There's just no point, and MSDN is good enough for most needs. And I'm not interested in developing infrastructure for something that won't happen. If you want to prove me wrong, start writing it. Once you have properly documented 100 functions, we can discuss what extra infrastructure is needed for the remaining 50,000. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: gdi32: first look for a printer driver name in the registry (try 6)

by Vitaliy Margolen

On 02/25/2011 10:33 AM, André Hentschel wrote: > Hi, > Now you entirely remove the ini-stuff, why? Where you seeing that? He still calling the same ini function(s) as before. > and why do you use a OR (||) for the registry function? What's the problem with that? Can you actually point to the piece of code that doesn't work correctly? This piece of code: > + if ((RegOpenKeyExW(HKEY_CURRENT_USER, WinNT_CV_devicesW, 0, KEY_READ, &hKey) || > + RegQueryValueExW(hKey, device, NULL, NULL, (LPBYTE) driver, &size)) && > + !GetProfileStringW(devicesW, device, empty_strW, driver, size)) will first try registry, if that fails then try ini, and if that also fails will print warning. Both registry functions return ERROR_SUCCESS (which is 0) on success. Vitaliy.

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [2/2] msxml3: Reject xmlns attribute to be added to element

by Marvin

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=9543 Your paranoid android. === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc: unhandled exception c0000005 at 90909090 === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc: unhandled exception c0000005 at 749BCF8E === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc: unhandled exception c0000005 at 90909090 === WVISTAADM (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc: unhandled exception c0000005 at FF85F88B === W2K8SE (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc: unhandled exception c0000005 at FF8B9090 === W7PRO (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:7308: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7327: Test failed: got 0x00000000 domdoc.c:7351: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7360: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7396: Test failed: got 0x80070057 === W7PROX64 (32 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:7308: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7327: Test failed: got 0x00000000 domdoc.c:7351: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7360: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7396: Test failed: got 0x80070057 === W7PROX64 (64 bit domdoc) === domdoc.c:7308: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7327: Test failed: got 0x00000000 domdoc.c:7351: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7360: Test failed: got 0x80070057 domdoc.c:7396: Test failed: got 0x80070057

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: msxml3/tests: Remove broken test and parameter check

by Nikolay Sivov

On 2/27/2011 22:09, Nikolay Sivov wrote: > Test was recently enabled, and it crashes on several machines, > including mine. QueryInterface generally should never check for return > pointer. > Ignore that please, there's another line to remove.

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: Please help me with document extraction.

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 02/27/2011 02:49 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Max TenEyck Woodbury<max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net> writes: > >> P.S. to AJ et al. >> >> There is a _lot_ of documentation embedded in the wine code, but it is >> hard to find at the moment. I'd like to see it indexed and this is the >> program that does the extraction and indexing. Advice on making this >> new version available and active are in order. > > This has already been discussed, but documentation on the Windows API > doesn't belong in the source code. I've been accepting small amounts of > function documentation (which IMHO is pretty much useless) along with > implementations, but I'm not going to accept significantly more than > that. This is why you were directed to do this as a separate project. > But it _does_ belong someplace in the repository and there is already a lot of it embedded. I'm also not sure that what is in there already can really be called documentation of the _Windows_ API. Rather it is documentation of what we _think_ the API is. That is a small but important difference. I'd also like clarification on why you think it does _not_ belong in the source code. Some projects insist that documentation _has_ to be part of the source code so that it will be properly maintained. Max

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: Please help me with document extraction.

by Alexandre Julliard

Max TenEyck Woodbury <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net> writes: > P.S. to AJ et al. > > There is a _lot_ of documentation embedded in the wine code, but it is > hard to find at the moment. I'd like to see it indexed and this is the > program that does the extraction and indexing. Advice on making this > new version available and active are in order. This has already been discussed, but documentation on the Windows API doesn't belong in the source code. I've been accepting small amounts of function documentation (which IMHO is pretty much useless) along with implementations, but I'm not going to accept significantly more than that. This is why you were directed to do this as a separate project. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [PATCH 1/5] d3dcompiler: Fix SystemValueType for pixelshader output signature.

by Henri Verbeet

2011/2/27 Rico Schüller <kgbricola(a)web.de>: > +static BOOL case_insensitive_compare(const char *s1, const char *s2) Isn't that called strcasecmp()?

Feb. 27, 2011