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

Re: gsoc mentor summit

by Owen Rudge

> The gsoc mentor summit organizing is getting started. Do any fellow mentors > want to travel there? I'd be interested if there's a space going free. We just get to send 2 mentors though as I understand it? Cheers, -- Owen Rudge http://www.owenrudge.net/

July 27, 2011

gsoc mentor summit

by Stefan Dösinger

Hi, The gsoc mentor summit organizing is getting started. Do any fellow mentors want to travel there? http://gsoc-wiki.osuosl.org/index.php/2011 Stefan PS: I vaguely remember that we once had a separate mailing list for gsoc stuff like that, but I can't find it, only Dan Kegel's old wine-gsoc-2007 list.

July 27, 2011

Bug status transitions ~ bug 27908

by wylda＠volny.cz

Hi, there is bug 27908, which i closed as invalid, because user did not used latest fixed version. AJ says: If there was a bug then it's FIXED. Based on that, even if the user has a crash in 1.0.1 and opens _now_ a bug and one day later says "it is FIXED in 1.3.25", then it should be marked as FIXED. Because i noticed before, that this is handled differently, i'm writing here about above rule, which unify that. Regards, W. -- Sháníte letenky na pracovní cestu, dovolenou či jen na výlet? Na http://letenky.volny.cz si zajisté vyberete.

July 27, 2011

Re: kernel32/tests/debugger: remove win9x hacks

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > - if (disposition == REG_CREATED_NEW_KEY) > - win_skip("'dbg,event,order' test doesn't finish on Win9x/WinMe\n"); > - else > - crash_and_debug(hkey, test_exe, "dbg,event,order"); > + crash_and_debug(hkey, test_exe, "dbg,event,order"); You should check 'disposition' instead of removing it altogether. -- Dmitry.

July 27, 2011

Re: kernel32/tests/atom: remove win9x hacks

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > len = GlobalGetAtomNameA( (ATOM)i, buf, 2); > - if (!len) /* the NT way */ > - { > - ok(GetLastError() == (i ? ERROR_MORE_DATA : ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER) || > - GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, /* the Win 9x way */ > - "wrong error conditions %u for %u\n", GetLastError(), i); > - } > - else /* the Win 9x way */ > - { > - ok(GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, > - "wrong error conditions %u for %u\n", GetLastError(), i); > - } > + ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_MORE_DATA || GetLastError() == ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER, > + "wrong error conditions %u for %u\n", GetLastError(), i); > } You should add an ok(!len) check here. > len = GlobalGetAtomNameA(atom, out, 10); > - if (!len) /* the NT way */ > - { > - ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_MORE_DATA, "wrong error code (%u instead of %u)\n", GetLastError(), ERROR_MORE_DATA); > - } > - else /* the Win9x way */ > - { > - ok(GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef, "wrong error code (%u instead of %u)\n", GetLastError(), 0xdeadbeef); > - } > + ok(GetLastError() == ERROR_MORE_DATA, "wrong error code (%u instead of %u)\n", GetLastError(), ERROR_MORE_DATA); And here. -- Dmitry.

July 27, 2011

Re: gdi32/tests/mapping: remove win9x hacks

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > - if (is_win9x) > - { > - expect_viewport_ext(hdc, dpi_x, dpi_y); > - expect_window_ext(hdc, 254, -254); > - } > - else > - { > - expect_viewport_ext(hdc, res_x, -res_y); > - ok( GetWindowExtEx( hdc, &size ), "GetWindowExtEx failed\n" ); > - ok( rough_match( size.cx, size_cx * 10 ) || > - rough_match( size.cx, MulDiv( res_x, 254, dpi_x )), /* Vista uses a more precise method */ > - "expected cx %d or %d, got %d\n", size_cx * 10, MulDiv( res_x, 254, dpi_x ), size.cx ); > - ok( rough_match( size.cy, size_cy * 10 ) || > - rough_match( size.cy, MulDiv( res_y, 254, dpi_y )), /* Vista uses a more precise method */ > - "expected cy %d or %d, got %d\n", size_cy * 10, MulDiv( res_y, 254, dpi_y ), size.cy ); > - } > + ok( GetWindowExtEx( hdc, &size ), "GetWindowExtEx failed\n" ); > + ok( rough_match( size.cx, size_cx * 10 ) || > + rough_match( size.cx, MulDiv( res_x, 254, dpi_x )), /* Vista uses a more precise method */ > + "expected cx %d or %d, got %d\n", size_cx * 10, MulDiv( res_x, 254, dpi_x ), size.cx ); > + ok( rough_match( size.cy, size_cy * 10 ) || > + rough_match( size.cy, MulDiv( res_y, 254, dpi_y )), /* Vista uses a more precise method */ > + "expected cy %d or %d, got %d\n", size_cy * 10, MulDiv( res_y, 254, dpi_y ), size.cy ); > expect_world_transform(hdc, 1.0, 1.0); > expect_LPtoDP(hdc, MulDiv(1000 / 10, res_x, size_cx), -MulDiv(1000 / 10, res_y, size_cy)); You've lost 'expect_viewport_ext(hdc, res_x, -res_y);' from the 'else' block. -- Dmitry.

July 27, 2011

Re: kernel32/tests/sync: remove win9x hacks

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=12916 Your paranoid android. === W7PRO (32 bit sync) === sync.c:849: Test failed: ChangeTimerQueueTimer

July 27, 2011

Re: [3/3] ddraw/tests: Add a couple of fog tests.

by Matteo Bruni

2011/7/27 Marvin <testbot(a)testbot.winehq.org>: > 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=12866 > > Your paranoid android. > > > === WINEBUILD (build) === > Make failed > Apparently the testbot got confused and mixed up my two 3-patch series (in hindsight, I should have sent the two series with some delay in between).

July 26, 2011

Re: [3/3] ddraw/tests: Add a couple of fog tests.

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=12866 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

July 26, 2011

Re: [3/3] d3d9/tests: Add a couple of fog tests.

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=12862 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Make failed

July 26, 2011