September 2011 - Wine-Devel

re: [PATCH 1/3] wshom.ocx: Added WshShell class factory implementation

by Dan Kegel

build failed here? ../../tools/makedep -C. -S../.. -T../.. shell.c wshom_main.c wshom.rc wshom.idl wshom.idl wshom.tlb wshom_private.h: No such file or directory wshom_private.h was first included from shell.c:19 make[1]: *** [depend] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/bob/wineslave.dir/sandbox/slave/runtests-default/build/dlls/wshom.ocx' make: *** [dlls/wshom.ocx/__depend__] Error 2 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Something's rotten in git today...

by Jérôme Gardou

Le 19/09/2011 14:35, Bernhard Loos a écrit : > This patch should fix the problem: > http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/79042 I switched it back to use > nonoverlapped named pipe functions, as only the ConnectNamedPipe > operation actually needs the overlapped mode, so I used a dedicated > thread for it. The other option would be to create the overlapped > completation event for each read/write operation, but this would > result in a lot more overhead. Bernhard Hello. See the patch I sent on Friday. I guess now it's Alexandre choice between the two solutions. Regards. Jérôme.

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Old imagehlp patches

by Henri Verbeet

On 19 September 2011 03:37, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: > weren't good enough in 2004-5, they're not any better now. You'd want > someone who has an active interest in this area to have a go at them, > I believe, unless you can convince the original author to take them up > again. AFAIK we're still not accepting ReactOS code.

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: comctl32: Don't crash when getting a bad image list handle. (try 2)

by Nikolay Sivov

On 9/19/2011 20:45, Chris Robinson wrote: > On Monday, September 19, 2011 4:09:29 PM Francois Gouget wrote: >> I prefer this construct as using IsBadReadPtr() would introduce a race >> in is_valid(). Of course calling is_valid() is in itself racy anyway. So >> I don't mind switching over if that's preferred (the code would have >> fewer lines). > Would it be feasible to keep a list or array of all pertinent HIMAGELIST > objects, and just look up the handle in that list for validation? If it's kept > sorted, you can even do a binary search for it instead of linear. It's not a handle, it's just a pointer.

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: comctl32: Don't crash when getting a bad image list handle. (try 2)

by Chris Robinson

On Monday, September 19, 2011 4:09:29 PM Francois Gouget wrote: > I prefer this construct as using IsBadReadPtr() would introduce a race > in is_valid(). Of course calling is_valid() is in itself racy anyway. So > I don't mind switching over if that's preferred (the code would have > fewer lines). Would it be feasible to keep a list or array of all pertinent HIMAGELIST objects, and just look up the handle in that list for validation? If it's kept sorted, you can even do a binary search for it instead of linear.

Sept. 19, 2011

re: mscoree: Add .Net debugging interfaces

by Dan Kegel

Doesn't apply here: $ wget http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/79041 $ git reset --hard origin $ patch -p1 < 79041 patching file include/Makefile.in patching file include/cordebug.idl patch: **** malformed patch at line 998: -- $ git reset --hard origin $ git apply 79041 79041:99: trailing whitespace. interface ICorDebugValueBreakpoint; fatal: corrupt patch at line 999

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Ole16 to Ole32 mapping

by Marcus Meissner

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:00:48AM -0300, Bruno Jesus wrote: > Hi, I would like some advice about Ole function redirection. The > winsock16 dll maps some operations to ws2_32 dll, I thought I could do > the same with Ole16disp to Oleaut32. For example the function > SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR in Ole16disp have a similar counterpart named > SafeArrayAllocDescriptor in Oleaut32. There are dozens of functions > like this if you look in the spec files of these dlls. I added > oleaut32 to the imports and started mapping by making one line > functions, for example SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR simply return calling > SafeArrayAllocDescriptor from Ole32. Is it ok to do it like this? > > I implemented SafeArrayAlloc[Descriptor/Data] and > SafeArrayDestroy[Descriptor/Data] and they seem to be working, then I > started implementing some of the others and testing with the > application winverbs from bug #28113. Is there any msdn documentation > like to these old functions? I would like to compare the function > parameters in some cases. You will quite soon stumble upon the need for implementing COM interfaces in 16bit. Let me just say that this will not be pretty. Ciao, Marcus

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: comctl32: Don't crash when getting a bad image list handle. (try 2)

by Francois Gouget

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Nikolay Sivov wrote: [...] > > static inline BOOL is_valid(HIMAGELIST himl) > > { > > - return himl&& himl->lpVtbl ==&ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > > + BOOL valid; > > + __TRY > > + { > > + valid = himl&& himl->lpVtbl ==&ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > > + } > > + __EXCEPT_PAGE_FAULT > > + { > > + valid = FALSE; > > + } > > + __ENDTRY > > + return valid; > > } > Maybe use IsBadReadPtr() with sizeof(void*) is better? You need only vtable > pointer to be accessible. I prefer this construct as using IsBadReadPtr() would introduce a race in is_valid(). Of course calling is_valid() is in itself racy anyway. So I don't mind switching over if that's preferred (the code would have fewer lines). -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ E-Voting: Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [po]updated korean resource(2011-09-19)

by Francois Gouget

msgstr "" +"Wine is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the " +"terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free " +"Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) " +"any later version.\n" +"\n" +"Wine is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY " +"WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS " +"FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for " +"more details.\n" +"\n" +"You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License " +"along with Wine; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 " +"Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA." This is not a translation so I don't think it should be put in the PO file[1]. Copying the English string is not needed by Wine and it will only make it less likely that a proper translation is provided later. [1] Also Korean is not an RTL language so the 'Hebrew' exception does not apply<g>. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ La terre est une bêta...

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: comctl32: Don't crash when getting a bad image list handle. (try 2)

by Nikolay Sivov

On 9/19/2011 17:32, Francois Gouget wrote: > --- > > Don't return from inside the block this time. > > dlls/comctl32/imagelist.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > dlls/comctl32/tests/imagelist.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/comctl32/imagelist.c b/dlls/comctl32/imagelist.c > index ec62370..83b8b44 100644 > --- a/dlls/comctl32/imagelist.c > +++ b/dlls/comctl32/imagelist.c > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ > #include "commoncontrols.h" > #include "imagelist.h" > #include "wine/debug.h" > +#include "wine/exception.h" > > WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(imagelist); > > @@ -3587,7 +3588,17 @@ static const IImageListVtbl ImageListImpl_Vtbl = { > > static inline BOOL is_valid(HIMAGELIST himl) > { > - return himl&& himl->lpVtbl ==&ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > + BOOL valid; > + __TRY > + { > + valid = himl&& himl->lpVtbl ==&ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > + } > + __EXCEPT_PAGE_FAULT > + { > + valid = FALSE; > + } > + __ENDTRY > + return valid; > } Maybe use IsBadReadPtr() with sizeof(void*) is better? You need only vtable pointer to be accessible.

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Ole16 to Ole32 mapping

by Damjan Jovanovic

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I would like some advice about Ole function redirection. The > winsock16 dll maps some operations to ws2_32 dll, I thought I could do > the same with Ole16disp to Oleaut32. For example the function > SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR in Ole16disp have a similar counterpart named > SafeArrayAllocDescriptor in Oleaut32. There are dozens of functions > like this if you look in the spec files of these dlls. I added > oleaut32 to the imports and started mapping by making one line > functions, for example SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR simply return calling > SafeArrayAllocDescriptor from Ole32. Is it ok to do it like this? > > I implemented SafeArrayAlloc[Descriptor/Data] and > SafeArrayDestroy[Descriptor/Data] and they seem to be working, then I > started implementing some of the others and testing with the > application winverbs from bug #28113. Is there any msdn documentation > like to these old functions? I would like to compare the function > parameters in some cases. > > Thanks in advance, > Bruno > > -- > universe* god::bigbang (void); //and then it all began... > > > Hi No, both the function API and the structure fields for the 16 bit SAFEARRAY* functions are different from the 32 bit versions. 16 bit OLE in Wine looks like a complete rewrite. There is no MSDN documentation for any Win16 functions. Even OpenWatcom doesn't have headers or API documentation for 16 bit OLE. The only compiler I know of that does, is the commercial version of Digital Mars (http://www.digitalmars.com/shop.html) Damjan Jovanovic

Sept. 19, 2011

Ole16 to Ole32 mapping

by Bruno Jesus

Hi, I would like some advice about Ole function redirection. The winsock16 dll maps some operations to ws2_32 dll, I thought I could do the same with Ole16disp to Oleaut32. For example the function SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR in Ole16disp have a similar counterpart named SafeArrayAllocDescriptor in Oleaut32. There are dozens of functions like this if you look in the spec files of these dlls. I added oleaut32 to the imports and started mapping by making one line functions, for example SAFEARRAYALLOCDESCRIPTOR simply return calling SafeArrayAllocDescriptor from Ole32. Is it ok to do it like this? I implemented SafeArrayAlloc[Descriptor/Data] and SafeArrayDestroy[Descriptor/Data] and they seem to be working, then I started implementing some of the others and testing with the application winverbs from bug #28113. Is there any msdn documentation like to these old functions? I would like to compare the function parameters in some cases. Thanks in advance, Bruno -- universe* god::bigbang (void); //and then it all began...

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 16/17] vbscript: Added interp_me 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=14384 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 14/17] vbscript: Added support for SCRIPTITEM_ISVISIBLE named items

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=14383 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 12/17] vbscript: Added error object stub 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=14382 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 06/17] vbscript: Added is expression 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=14380 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: vbscript: Make vbdisp_get_id() static.

by Jacek Caban

Hi Francois, On 09/18/11 19:37, Francois Gouget wrote: > --- > dlls/vbscript/vbdisp.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/vbscript/vbdisp.c b/dlls/vbscript/vbdisp.c > index 14fb8b0..db1c864 100644 > --- a/dlls/vbscript/vbdisp.c > +++ b/dlls/vbscript/vbdisp.c > @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static BOOL get_func_id(vbdisp_t *This, const WCHAR *name, vbdisp_invoke_type_t > return FALSE; > } > > -HRESULT vbdisp_get_id(vbdisp_t *This, BSTR name, vbdisp_invoke_type_t invoke_type, BOOL search_private, DISPID *id) > +static HRESULT vbdisp_get_id(vbdisp_t *This, BSTR name, vbdisp_invoke_type_t invoke_type, BOOL search_private, DISPID *id) > { > unsigned i; Good catch, but my recent patch series needs it being non-static. Jacek

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Something's rotten in git today...

by Bernhard Loos

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Bernhard Loos <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Bernhard Loos >> <bernhardloos(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> It might be just me, but I've seen five very strange test failures >>>>> today out of about 30 build/test runs. >>>>> Has anybody else noticed problems? >>>> >>>> It smells like the rpcrt4 change. >> >> I thought so, too. >> >>> I admit I'm a bit at a loss, how this could happen. Could you create a >>> +seh,+rpc log? >>> And does it go away, if you revert those changes? >> >> I've reproduced it twice now in an hour on two quad-core machines with >> the script >> >> for try in `seq 1 100` >> do >> echo try $try >> server/wineserver -k || true >> rm -rf ~/.wine >> cd dlls/advapi32/tests >> rm -f *.ok >> make test >> cd ../../msi/tests >> rm -f action.ok >> make action.ok >> cd ../../.. >> done >> >> so it may take me a while to verify that it goes away after reverting >> the rpc change >> or to get you a detailed log. >> >> In one of the failures, I got the service.ok failure from above: >> >> service.c:152: Test failed: Expected success, got error 1060 >> err:rpc:I_RpcGetBuffer no binding >> service.c:176: Test failed: Expected ERROR_SERVICE_DOES_NOT_EXIST, got 123 >> >> In the other, I got a crash in service.ok: >> ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p >> advapi32_test.exe.so service.c && touch service.ok >> err:rpc:I_RpcGetBuffer no binding >> err:rpc:I_RpcGetBuffer no binding >> wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x60481043 at address >> 0x7bc34227 (thread 0021), starting debugger.. >> err:ntdll:RtlpWaitForCriticalSection section 0x110530 "?" wait timed >> out in thread 002a, blocked by 0021, retrying (60 sec) >> ... > > This crash is the most interesting thing by far. It looks like it's > somewhere in ntdll. > Could you please check where exectly? Ntdll should always get mapped > to the same place, so if you didn't make any changes to it in the > meantime, you can check it with some random wine process without > waiting for the crash to happen again > >> I don't get backtraces much anymore because of that darn deadlock (unrelated >> to the current problem), and btall doesn't seem to show a crash (though it >> does have some interesting stack traces); see the attachment. >> >> Austin may have a related crash in rpcrt4_test.exe.so server.c, see >> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28383#c2 >> This patch should fix the problem: http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/79042 I switched it back to use nonoverlapped named pipe functions, as only the ConnectNamedPipe operation actually needs the overlapped mode, so I used a dedicated thread for it. The other option would be to create the overlapped completation event for each read/write operation, but this would result in a lot more overhead. Bernhard

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 05/17] vbscript: Added interp_lteq 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=14379 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 04/17] vbscript: Added interp_lt 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=14378 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 03/17] vbscript: Added interp_gt 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=14377 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: [PATCH 02/17] vbscript: Added interp_gteq 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=14376 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 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit) === No test summary line found

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: comctl32: Don't crash when getting a bad image list handle.

by Alexandre Julliard

Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > @@ -3587,7 +3588,15 @@ static const IImageListVtbl ImageListImpl_Vtbl = { > > static inline BOOL is_valid(HIMAGELIST himl) > { > - return himl && himl->lpVtbl == &ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > + __TRY > + { > + return himl && himl->lpVtbl == &ImageListImpl_Vtbl; > + } > + __EXCEPT_PAGE_FAULT > + { > + return FALSE; > + } > + __ENDTRY You can't return from a __TRY block. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Old imagehlp patches

by Thomas Kluyver

On 19 September 2011 02:37, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I wouldn't > hold your breath expecting these patches to go in as-is: if they > weren't good enough in 2004-5, they're not any better now. You'd want > someone who has an active interest in this area to have a go at them, > I believe, unless you can convince the original author to take them up > again. > Thanks, Juan. I had a feeling that would be the case. I'll leave them be. Best wishes, Thomas

Sept. 19, 2011

Re: Old imagehlp patches

by Juan Lang

Hi Thomas, wrong mailing list. You wanted wine-devel instead (now cc'ed.) > I don't know about wine development, but are these patches still likely to > work? What would need to happen for them to be merged in? To your first question, try them and see! To your second question, a lot. They're much too large to be merged at a single go, they lack tests, and they should be sent by their original author. I wouldn't hold your breath expecting these patches to go in as-is: if they weren't good enough in 2004-5, they're not any better now. You'd want someone who has an active interest in this area to have a go at them, I believe, unless you can convince the original author to take them up again. --Juan

Sept. 19, 2011