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

Re: netstat: Initial implementation

by Alexandre Julliard

André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de> writes: > +STRINGTABLE > +{ > + IDS_TCP_UNKNOWN, "???" > + IDS_TCP_CLOSED, "CLOSED" > + IDS_TCP_LISTENING, "LISTENING" > + IDS_TCP_SYN_SENT, "SYN_SENT" > + IDS_TCP_SYN_RCVD, "SYN_RCVD" > + IDS_TCP_ESTABLISHED, "ESTABLISHED" > + IDS_TCP_FIN_WAIT1, "FIN_WAIT1" > + IDS_TCP_FIN_WAIT2, "FIN_WAIT2" > + IDS_TCP_CLOSE_WAIT, "CLOSE_WAIT" > + IDS_TCP_CLOSING, "CLOSING" > + IDS_TCP_LAST_ACK, "LAST_ACK" > + IDS_TCP_TIME_WAIT, "TIME_WAIT" > + IDS_TCP_DELETE_TCB, "DELETE_TCB" It's not useful to put these in resources, we don't want to have to translate them. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Dec. 27, 2012

Re: msvcrt: Return error in stat function when path is specified with trailing slash character

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=23632 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit file) === file.c:1449: Test failed: stat returned 0 file.c:1450: Test failed: errno = -559038737 file.c:1514: Test failed: stat returned 0 file.c:1515: Test failed: errno = -559038737

Dec. 27, 2012

Mail problems for wine-patches

by Detlef Riekenberg

I send several patches the last days with git and with the webmail interface from web.de, but nothing arrived at the wine-patches archive or the patches queue page. I also unsubscribed and subscribed again to the wine-patches list. Any ideas? Has wine-patches a whitelist? -- By by ... Detlef

Dec. 26, 2012

Re: [PATCH] loader: Build with -fno-builtin.

by Austin English

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis5x(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This prevents Clang from optimizing wld_memset() into a memset(3) call. > --- > loader/Makefile.in | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/loader/Makefile.in b/loader/Makefile.in > index 41d69c7..ece07c3 100644 > --- a/loader/Makefile.in > +++ b/loader/Makefile.in > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > DEFS = -D__WINESRC__ $(EXTRADEFS) > +MODCFLAGS = -fno-builtin > > C_SRCS = \ > main.c \ > -- > 1.7.12.4 I can confirm it works. -- -Austin

Dec. 26, 2012

Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH] comdlg32/tests: Accept win8 failure-code

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Detlef Riekenberg" <wine.dev(a)web.de> wrote: > >> + /* win8: E_NOTIMPL */ > >> + ok(hr == E_FAIL || hr == E_NOTIMPL, "got 0x%08x.\n", hr); > > >A usual form for such comparisons is > >ok(hr == E_FAIL || hr == E_NOTIMPL /* win8 */, "got 0x%08x.\n", hr); > I disagree! > > Comments at the end of a line are ok, > but a comment in the middle /* broken */ of a line decrease /* ugly by design */ the readability > of the code /* not compiler related */ for humans/developers a lot and should be allowed > only for backwards compatibility. You are confusing a sentence and a set of statements. -- Dmitry.

Dec. 26, 2012

Re: oledb32: Partial implementation of GetDataSource()

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=23600 Your paranoid android. === WVISTAADM (32 bit database) === database: unhandled exception c000001d at 0075006C === W2K8SE (32 bit database) === database: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00750064 === W7PRO (32 bit database) === database: unhandled exception c0000005 at 007500A7 === W7PROX64 (32 bit database) === database: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00750064 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit database) === database: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00750064 === W7PROX64 (64 bit database) === Timeout === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit database) === Timeout

Dec. 24, 2012

Re: msvcrt: Added _stricmp_l 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=23596 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit string) === string.c:2462: Test failed: _stricmp returned -1 string.c:2464: Test failed: _stricmp returned 1 === W7PROX64 (64 bit string) === string.c:2448: Test failed: _stricmp returned -25 string.c:2450: Test failed: _stricmp returned 25 string.c:2452: Test failed: _stricmp returned -20 === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit string) === string.c:2448: Test failed: _stricmp returned -25 string.c:2450: Test failed: _stricmp returned 25 string.c:2452: Test failed: _stricmp returned -20

Dec. 24, 2012

Re: wine-1.5.20 reversion compared to 1.5.19 and previous; MinGW/gcc 4.7.0 segfaults under wineconsole

by Alan W. Irwin

On 2012-12-23 21:25-0600 Austin English wrote: > On Dec 23, 2012 7:22 PM, "Alan W. Irwin" <irwin(a)beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote: >> >> The subject line pretty much says it all. Running MinGW/gcc under >> wineconsole for any simple test programme should demonstrate the issue >> for wine-1.5.20 which is not present in wine-1.5.19 and a fairly large >> selection of 1.5.x and MinGW versions I have tried over the last year >> or so. >> >> I would be happy to supply more details if there is any difficulty >> replicating this reversion. >> >> Alan > > Please run a regression test and file a bug at http://bugs.winehq.org. No thank you. The last time I wrote a wine bug report (with a test case and a patch to fix the problem no less), wine developers seemed content with the fact that that bug had been reported. They did not actually fix the problem until I made a special personal appeal to one of them more than a year later. So eventually there was a happy ending there, but the impression I got from that experience is that Wine bug reports for even the most obvious issues like that one are pretty much a waste of everyone's time unless and until a Wine developer takes responsibility. Of course, in that case the bug reporting system is worthwhile since it can make a permanent record of all the events leading to a solution. In this case, I would like a Wine developer to take responsibility as well for what I think is an obvious issue with 1.5.20 by verifying the issue, and then taking any further development steps they want to take concerning this issue. Or perhaps there will be an even more obvious symptom of the problem with 1.5.20 that will lead to a solution quicker than if someone follows the MinGW segfault symptom that I have found. In other words, I am willing to help out Wine by reporting the issue informally here, and let Wine developers make their best judgement of what to do about the issue, but that is about it. Sorry I have to be ruthless about this, but I do not want to get involved in wine development or go through a bunch of Wine bug-reporting hoops since I need to reserve my development efforts for my own free software projects. Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net) the Time Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net) PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.sf.net) the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi) the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net) and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net) __________________________ Linux-powered Science __________________________

Dec. 24, 2012

Re: wine-1.5.20 reversion compared to 1.5.19 and previous; MinGW/gcc 4.7.0 segfaults under wineconsole

by Austin English

On Dec 23, 2012 7:22 PM, "Alan W. Irwin" <irwin(a)beluga.phys.uvic.ca> wrote: > > The subject line pretty much says it all. Running MinGW/gcc under > wineconsole for any simple test programme should demonstrate the issue > for wine-1.5.20 which is not present in wine-1.5.19 and a fairly large > selection of 1.5.x and MinGW versions I have tried over the last year > or so. > > I would be happy to supply more details if there is any difficulty > replicating this reversion. > > Alan Please run a regression test and file a bug at http://bugs.winehq.org.

Dec. 24, 2012

wine-1.5.20 reversion compared to 1.5.19 and previous; MinGW/gcc 4.7.0 segfaults under wineconsole

by Alan W. Irwin

The subject line pretty much says it all. Running MinGW/gcc under wineconsole for any simple test programme should demonstrate the issue for wine-1.5.20 which is not present in wine-1.5.19 and a fairly large selection of 1.5.x and MinGW versions I have tried over the last year or so. I would be happy to supply more details if there is any difficulty replicating this reversion. Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net) the Time Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net) PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.sf.net) the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi) the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net) and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net) __________________________ Linux-powered Science __________________________

Dec. 24, 2012