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

Re: gdiplus: Add support for extra transformation in GdipMeasureDriverString and GdipDrawDriverString.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Without tests, I can only guess, but I think it's more likely that > >> this matrix transform should be applied before the world->device > >> transform. > >> > >> Apart from questions of whether this is correct behavior, the patch > >> looks good to me. > > > > I have written a graphical test application to test this behaviour, > > and it shows the same results under Windows7 and Wine with this patch. > > There are the tests I've added for GdipMeasureDriverString+matrix, but > > they don't pass for not various not related reasons. > > It doesn't look to me like any of the tests are checking the order. An > obvious way to do that would be to sheer or rotate with one and scale > X/Y differently with the other. Yes, that's a good suggestion, but the tests currently won't pass anyway, so adding a test would not prove anything. As I said, the only way to test the result at this point is a visual test (which I have here). -- Dmitry.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: gdiplus: Add support for extra transformation in GdipMeasureDriverString and GdipDrawDriverString.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Vincent Povirk <madewokherd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Without tests, I can only guess, but I think it's more likely that > this matrix transform should be applied before the world->device > transform. > > Apart from questions of whether this is correct behavior, the patch > looks good to me. I have written a graphical test application to test this behaviour, and it shows the same results under Windows7 and Wine with this patch. There are the tests I've added for GdipMeasureDriverString+matrix, but they don't pass for not various not related reasons. -- Dmitry.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: gdiplus: Add support for extra transformation in GdipMeasureDriverString and GdipDrawDriverString.

by Vincent Povirk

> Yes, that's a good suggestion, but the tests currently won't pass anyway, > so adding a test would not prove anything. As I said, the only way to test > the result at this point is a visual test (which I have here). It would at least verify and document the correct behavior on windows.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: gdiplus: Add support for extra transformation in GdipMeasureDriverString and GdipDrawDriverString.

by Vincent Povirk

>> Without tests, I can only guess, but I think it's more likely that >> this matrix transform should be applied before the world->device >> transform. >> >> Apart from questions of whether this is correct behavior, the patch >> looks good to me. > > I have written a graphical test application to test this behaviour, > and it shows the same results under Windows7 and Wine with this patch. > There are the tests I've added for GdipMeasureDriverString+matrix, but > they don't pass for not various not related reasons. It doesn't look to me like any of the tests are checking the order. An obvious way to do that would be to sheer or rotate with one and scale X/Y differently with the other.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: gdiplus: Add support for extra transformation in GdipMeasureDriverString and GdipDrawDriverString.

by Vincent Povirk

> @@ -6337,6 +6345,11 @@ GpStatus WINGDIPAPI GdipMeasureDriverString(GpGraphics *graphics, GDIPCONST UINT > pt[2].X = 0.0; > pt[2].Y = 1.0; > GdipTransformPoints(graphics, CoordinateSpaceDevice, CoordinateSpaceWorld, pt, 3); > + if (matrix) > + { > + GpMatrix xform = *matrix; > + GdipTransformMatrixPoints(&xform, pt, 3); > + } > rel_width = sqrt((pt[1].Y-pt[0].Y)*(pt[1].Y-pt[0].Y)+ > (pt[1].X-pt[0].X)*(pt[1].X-pt[0].X)); > rel_height = sqrt((pt[2].Y-pt[0].Y)*(pt[2].Y-pt[0].Y)+ Without tests, I can only guess, but I think it's more likely that this matrix transform should be applied before the world->device transform. Apart from questions of whether this is correct behavior, the patch looks good to me.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: vbscript/tests: Skip some of the weekday tests if the first day of the week is not Sunday.

by Huw Davies

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:34:49PM +0100, Jacek Caban wrote: > Did you see those failures on Windows? test.winehq.org shows only some > Linux failures, which suggests that the problem is in implementation, > not tests. Hi Jacek, You're right. The current tests all pass on my Windows box with the exception of WeekDayName(1, true, 0) = "Mon" which is the system default. Not sure how to cleanly skip this one. I'll send in a patch for the implementation. Thanks, Huw.

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: vbscript/tests: Skip some of the weekday tests if the first day of the week is not Sunday.

by Jacek Caban

Hi Huw, On 10/31/12 12:04, Huw Davies wrote: > --- > dlls/vbscript/tests/api.vbs | 17 +++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Did you see those failures on Windows? test.winehq.org shows only some Linux failures, which suggests that the problem is in implementation, not tests. Jacek

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: vbscript/tests: Skip some of the weekday tests if the first day of the week is not Sunday.

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=22625 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. 31, 2012

Re: [PATCH] services: Fix non common sizeof usages. (resend)

by Alexandre Julliard

Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> writes: > Use parentesis is more common in Wine code and this makes all sizeof conform to file style anyway. You can clean this up if you are changing the code for other reasons, but otherwise there's no reason to do this. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Oct. 31, 2012

Re: hh: Avoid handle leak (coverity)

by Alexandre Julliard

Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.delanoy(a)gmail.com> writes: > @@ -27,9 +27,13 @@ int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInst, HINSTANCE hPrevInst, LPSTR cmdline, int cmds > > HMODULE hModule; > DOWINMAIN *doWinMain; > + int res; > > hModule = LoadLibraryA("hhctrl.ocx"); > doWinMain = (DOWINMAIN*) GetProcAddress(hModule, "doWinMain"); > > - return doWinMain(hInst, cmdline); > + res = doWinMain(hInst, cmdline); > + FreeLibrary(hModule); > + > + return res; Freeing things on process exit is not useful. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Oct. 31, 2012