October 2012 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH 4/5] include: Don't add d3d8 LP* interface typedefs for __WINESRC__.

by Alexandre Julliard

Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com> writes: > We can certainly generate some more d3d headers from idl, and we > probably should anyway, but I'm not sure how that's going to make the > mechanism any more generic. I suppose we could do something like > "DECL_WINELIB_TYPE(struct IDirect3D8, *LPDIRECT3D8);", if that's much > better. That would be better for headers written by hand, yes. But I'm not sure we want to add that at this point, since the goal should be to generate all interfaces from idl. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH 4/5] include: Don't add d3d8 LP* interface typedefs for __WINESRC__.

by Henri Verbeet

On 30 October 2012 10:41, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > I don't think we want to do that sort of thing, otherwise we'll end up > with ifdef __WINESRC__ all over the standard headers. If we really want > to disable interface typedefs this should be done in a generic way, > preferably when generating headers from idl. > We can certainly generate some more d3d headers from idl, and we probably should anyway, but I'm not sure how that's going to make the mechanism any more generic. I suppose we could do something like "DECL_WINELIB_TYPE(struct IDirect3D8, *LPDIRECT3D8);", if that's much better.

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Christian Costa

2012/10/30 Hans Leidekker <hans(a)codeweavers.com> > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 09:50 +0100, Christian Costa wrote: > > Just by curiosity. What the difference with strncmpW? > > strncmp tests the first string for null termination. You should really > determine that by yourself though :-) > > > >> Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this > implementation > > > How about CompareStringOrdinal( "a\0a", 3, "a\0b", 3 )? > > > > > > > > There is a similar test in the patch: > > > > WCHAR test1[] = { 't','e','s','t',0 }; > > WCHAR test3[] = { 't','e','s','t','3',0 }; > > > > ret = pCompareStringOrdinal(test1, 5, test3, 5, TRUE); > > ok(ret == CSTR_LESS_THAN, "Got %u, expected %u\n", ret, > CSTR_LESS_THAN); > > It's not the same test. The nulls are not at the same index and you're not > asking CompareStringOrdinal to read past a null. > > > I just wanted to compare 0 with 3 but you're right, I'll add such a test.

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH 4/5] include: Don't add d3d8 LP* interface typedefs for __WINESRC__.

by Alexandre Julliard

Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > @@ -1128,6 +1105,21 @@ DECLARE_INTERFACE_(IDirect3DDevice8,IUnknown) > #define IDirect3DDevice8_DeletePatch(p,a) (p)->DeletePatch(a) > #endif > > +#ifndef __WINESRC__ > +typedef struct IDirect3D8 *LPDIRECT3D8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DDevice8 *LPDIRECT3DDEVICE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DResource8 *LPDIRECT3DRESOURCE8, *PDIRECT3DRESOURCE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DVertexBuffer8 *LPDIRECT3DVERTEXBUFFER8, *PDIRECT3DVERTEXBUFFER8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DVolume8 *LPDIRECT3DVOLUME8, *PDIRECT3DVOLUME8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DSwapChain8 *LPDIRECT3DSWAPCHAIN8, *PDIRECT3DSWAPCHAIN8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DSurface8 *LPDIRECT3DSURFACE8, *PDIRECT3DSURFACE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DIndexBuffer8 *LPDIRECT3DINDEXBUFFER8, *PDIRECT3DINDEXBUFFER8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DBaseTexture8 *LPDIRECT3DBASETEXTURE8, *PDIRECT3DBASETEXTURE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DTexture8 *LPDIRECT3DTEXTURE8, *PDIRECT3DTEXTURE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DCubeTexture8 *LPDIRECT3DCUBETEXTURE8, *PDIRECT3DCUBETEXTURE8; > +typedef struct IDirect3DVolumeTexture8 *LPDIRECT3DVOLUMETEXTURE8, *PDIRECT3DVOLUMETEXTURE8; > +#endif I don't think we want to do that sort of thing, otherwise we'll end up with ifdef __WINESRC__ all over the standard headers. If we really want to disable interface typedefs this should be done in a generic way, preferably when generating headers from idl. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: vbscript: Added support for more builtin constants

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=22595 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

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Hans Leidekker

On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 09:50 +0100, Christian Costa wrote: > Just by curiosity. What the difference with strncmpW? strncmp tests the first string for null termination. You should really determine that by yourself though :-) > >> Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this implementation > > How about CompareStringOrdinal( "a\0a", 3, "a\0b", 3 )? > > > > > There is a similar test in the patch: > > WCHAR test1[] = { 't','e','s','t',0 }; > WCHAR test3[] = { 't','e','s','t','3',0 }; > > ret = pCompareStringOrdinal(test1, 5, test3, 5, TRUE); > ok(ret == CSTR_LESS_THAN, "Got %u, expected %u\n", ret, CSTR_LESS_THAN); It's not the same test. The nulls are not at the same index and you're not asking CompareStringOrdinal to read past a null.

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Nikolay Sivov

On 10/30/2012 10:42, Christian Costa wrote: > Le 30/10/2012 08:21, Nikolay Sivov a écrit : >> On 10/30/2012 01:43, Christian Costa wrote: >>> Try 2: >>> - Don't use CompareStringEx. >>> - Add tests >>> --- >>> dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec | 1 + >>> dlls/kernel32/locale.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c | 60 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec b/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >>> index b7efa0f..0bd1adc 100644 >>> --- a/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >>> +++ b/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >>> @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ >>> @ stdcall CompareStringA(long long str long str long) >>> @ stdcall CompareStringW(long long wstr long wstr long) >>> @ stdcall CompareStringEx(wstr long wstr long wstr long ptr ptr long) >>> +@ stdcall CompareStringOrdinal(wstr long wstr long long) >>> @ stdcall ConnectNamedPipe(long ptr) >>> @ stub ConsoleMenuControl >>> @ stub ConsoleSubst >>> diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/locale.c b/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >>> index c41442c..07eb688 100644 >>> --- a/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >>> +++ b/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >>> @@ -3047,6 +3047,34 @@ INT WINAPI CompareStringA(LCID lcid, DWORD >>> flags, >>> return ret; >>> } >>> +/****************************************************************************** >>> >>> + * CompareStringOrdinal (KERNEL32.@) >>> + */ >>> +INT WINAPI CompareStringOrdinal(const WCHAR *str1, INT len1, const >>> WCHAR *str2, INT len2, BOOL ignore_case) >>> +{ >>> + int ret, len; >>> + >>> + if (!str1 || !str2) >>> + { >>> + SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER); >>> + return 0; >>> + } >>> + if (len1 < 0) len1 = strlenW(str1); >>> + if (len2 < 0) len2 = strlenW(str2); >>> + >>> + len = min(len1, len2); >>> + if (ignore_case) >>> + ret = strncmpiW(str1, str2, len); >>> + else >>> + ret = strncmpW(str1, str2, len); >>> + >>> + if ((ret < 0) || (!ret && (len1 < len2))) >>> + return CSTR_LESS_THAN; >>> + else if ((ret > 0) || (!ret && (len1 > len2))) >>> + return CSTR_GREATER_THAN; >>> + return CSTR_EQUAL; >>> +} >>> + >> This is almost the same as your first try. You're testing a trivial >> case only - ASCII range. >> I feel like it should behave more like memcmp for case insensitive >> comparison, >> that's what documentation mildly suggests. >> >> > Well, It's not the same implementation. It's ordinal now. I have test > for that. > And how can memcmp be used for insensitive comparison? Yeah, sorry for a noise, I thought strncmpW is still too smart for some reason. And I meant memcmp for sensitive case of course, but that's what strncmpW already is. > Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this > implementation? No, it would be nice to have some tests outside ascii range, but this could be added later.

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Christian Costa

Le 30/10/2012 09:18, Hans Leidekker a écrit : > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 08:42 +0100, Christian Costa wrote: >>> This is almost the same as your first try. You're testing a trivial >>> case only - ASCII range. >>> I feel like it should behave more like memcmp for case insensitive >>> comparison, >>> that's what documentation mildly suggests. >>> >>> >> Well, It's not the same implementation. It's ordinal now. I have test >> for that. >> And how can memcmp be used for insensitive comparison? > Have a look at memicmpW. Just by curiosity. What the difference with strncmpW? > >> Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this implementation > How about CompareStringOrdinal( "a\0a", 3, "a\0b", 3 )? > > > There is a similar test in the patch: WCHAR test1[] = { 't','e','s','t',0 }; WCHAR test3[] = { 't','e','s','t','3',0 }; ret = pCompareStringOrdinal(test1, 5, test3, 5, TRUE); ok(ret == CSTR_LESS_THAN, "Got %u, expected %u\n", ret, CSTR_LESS_THAN);

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Hans Leidekker

On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 08:42 +0100, Christian Costa wrote: > > This is almost the same as your first try. You're testing a trivial > > case only - ASCII range. > > I feel like it should behave more like memcmp for case insensitive > > comparison, > > that's what documentation mildly suggests. > > > > > Well, It's not the same implementation. It's ordinal now. I have test > for that. > And how can memcmp be used for insensitive comparison? Have a look at memicmpW. > Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this implementation How about CompareStringOrdinal( "a\0a", 3, "a\0b", 3 )?

Oct. 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH] kernel32: Implement CompareStringOrdinal. (try 2)

by Christian Costa

Le 30/10/2012 08:21, Nikolay Sivov a écrit : > On 10/30/2012 01:43, Christian Costa wrote: >> Try 2: >> - Don't use CompareStringEx. >> - Add tests >> --- >> dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec | 1 + >> dlls/kernel32/locale.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> dlls/kernel32/tests/locale.c | 60 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec b/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >> index b7efa0f..0bd1adc 100644 >> --- a/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >> +++ b/dlls/kernel32/kernel32.spec >> @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ >> @ stdcall CompareStringA(long long str long str long) >> @ stdcall CompareStringW(long long wstr long wstr long) >> @ stdcall CompareStringEx(wstr long wstr long wstr long ptr ptr long) >> +@ stdcall CompareStringOrdinal(wstr long wstr long long) >> @ stdcall ConnectNamedPipe(long ptr) >> @ stub ConsoleMenuControl >> @ stub ConsoleSubst >> diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/locale.c b/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >> index c41442c..07eb688 100644 >> --- a/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >> +++ b/dlls/kernel32/locale.c >> @@ -3047,6 +3047,34 @@ INT WINAPI CompareStringA(LCID lcid, DWORD flags, >> return ret; >> } >> +/****************************************************************************** >> + * CompareStringOrdinal (KERNEL32.@) >> + */ >> +INT WINAPI CompareStringOrdinal(const WCHAR *str1, INT len1, const >> WCHAR *str2, INT len2, BOOL ignore_case) >> +{ >> + int ret, len; >> + >> + if (!str1 || !str2) >> + { >> + SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER); >> + return 0; >> + } >> + if (len1 < 0) len1 = strlenW(str1); >> + if (len2 < 0) len2 = strlenW(str2); >> + >> + len = min(len1, len2); >> + if (ignore_case) >> + ret = strncmpiW(str1, str2, len); >> + else >> + ret = strncmpW(str1, str2, len); >> + >> + if ((ret < 0) || (!ret && (len1 < len2))) >> + return CSTR_LESS_THAN; >> + else if ((ret > 0) || (!ret && (len1 > len2))) >> + return CSTR_GREATER_THAN; >> + return CSTR_EQUAL; >> +} >> + > This is almost the same as your first try. You're testing a trivial > case only - ASCII range. > I feel like it should behave more like memcmp for case insensitive > comparison, > that's what documentation mildly suggests. > > Well, It's not the same implementation. It's ordinal now. I have test for that. And how can memcmp be used for insensitive comparison? Do you have a concrete example that does not work with this implementation?

Oct. 30, 2012