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

Re: [1/3] user32/tests: Comment-out PostQuitMessage (causes tests skip)

by Alexey Slepov

Guys, so how about this? diff --git a/dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c b/dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c index 6bd34b3..4301c8d 100644 --- a/dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c +++ b/dlls/user32/tests/dialog.c @@ -1027,9 +1027,6 @@ static INT_PTR CALLBACK DestroyOnCloseDlgWinProc (HWND hDlg, UINT uiMsg, case WM_CLOSE: DestroyWindow(hDlg); return TRUE; - case WM_DESTROY: - PostQuitMessage(0); - return TRUE; } return FALSE; } 29.05.2012, 01:16, "Alexey Slepov" <sir-lexa(a)yandex.ru>: > I figured out now. > As described in wine sources, PostQuitMessage() sets a flag in the thread's message queue that signals it to generate > a WM_QUIT message when there are no other pending sent or posted messages in the queue. > The tests with skipped testcases are those which use WM_TIMER messages - test_timer_message() and my test. > In DIALOG_DoDialogBox() there is clearly defined that on receiving WM_QUIT message the window is destroyed. So timer messages just do not reach queue. > > I thought about solution again and now I think that it would be better to remove at all lines about WM_DESTROY handling, such as we don't handle this message. And let it be handled by default. That code does nothing except posting WM_QUIT messages leading to test skipping. (test passed on WineBot) > > What do you think? > > > 28.05.2012, 10:32, "Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru>: >> sir-lexa <sir-lexa(a)yandex.ru> wrote: >>> case WM_DESTROY: >>> - PostQuitMessage(0); >>> + /* PostQuitMessage(0); It lets some tests to be skipped */ >>> return TRUE; >> This is not acceptable, there is much more behind the scene. You need >> to figure out the real reason of skipping the tests. >> >> -- >> Dmitry.

May 31, 2012

Re: [PATCH 3/5] ddraw/tests: Add test_coop_level_mode_set() for older ddraw versions.

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=18687 Your paranoid android. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2282: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw2.c:2284: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2310: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2312: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2327: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2338: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2340: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2406: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw2.c:2408: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2434: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2436: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw2.c:2451: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw2.c:2462: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw2.c:2464: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. === WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2145: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw1.c:2147: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2173: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2175: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2190: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2201: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2203: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2269: Test failed: SetDipslayMode failed, hr 0x887600e1. ddraw1.c:2271: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2297: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2299: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600. ddraw1.c:2314: Test failed: Expected message 0x7e, but didn't receive it. ddraw1.c:2325: Test failed: Expected surface width 640, got 800. ddraw1.c:2327: Test failed: Expected surface height 480, got 600.

May 31, 2012

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ntdll/tests: Add tests for RtlGetProductInfo [resend]

by Alexandre Julliard

Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev(a)web.de> writes: > Clone the kernel32 tests to verify, that the NULL pointer > check is present in ntdll.dll That's not useful, it's clearly the same function, it doesn't need to be tested twice. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

May 31, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/5] win16/int21: make found filename uppercase.

by Alexandre Julliard

Oleksij Rempel <bug-track(a)fisher-privat.net> writes: > it is true, i used "char *". I just copy pasted this part from > "Convert ASCIIZ string to uppercase" in int21.c > So probably this should be fixed too. > > Or there is any way no interest to apply current patch? Only if you can show an application that depends on this. Otherwise there's no reason to change anything. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

May 31, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/5] win16/int21: make found filename uppercase.

by Oleksij Rempel

Am 30.05.2012 23:06, schrieb David Laight: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:32:28PM +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote: >> Oleksij Rempel <bug-track(a)fisher-privat.net> writes: >> >>> @@ -3961,6 +3962,8 @@ static int INT21_FindNext( CONTEXT *context ) >>> INT21_FindPath = dta->fullPath = NULL; >>> } >>> dta->count = n; >>> + p = dta->filename; >>> + for ( ; *p; p++) *p = toupper(*p); >> >> Using toupper is probably not a good idea on OEM codepage strings. Which >> app depends on this? > > I'd also guess that 'p' is defined as 'char *'. > The domain of toupper() isn't char, the value must be cast to > 'unsigned char' (or the pointer to 'unsigned char *'). > > David > it is true, i used "char *". I just copy pasted this part from "Convert ASCIIZ string to uppercase" in int21.c So probably this should be fixed too. Or there is any way no interest to apply current patch? -- Regards, Oleksij

May 31, 2012

Re: [4/4] windowscodecs: Add stub IWICMetadataBlockReader to PNG decoder.

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=18675 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 4CCA826D === W2K8SE (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 72C28045

May 30, 2012

Re: [3/4] windowscodecs: Add test for IWICMetadataBlockReader interface.

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=18674 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 4CCA826D === W2K8SE (32 bit metadata) === metadata: unhandled exception c0000005 at 72C28045

May 30, 2012

crypt32/tests(1/6): Don't shadow a variable with a variable of a different type

by Juan Lang

--Juan

May 30, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/5] win16/int21: make found filename uppercase.

by David Laight

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:32:28PM +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Oleksij Rempel <bug-track(a)fisher-privat.net> writes: > > > @@ -3961,6 +3962,8 @@ static int INT21_FindNext( CONTEXT *context ) > > INT21_FindPath = dta->fullPath = NULL; > > } > > dta->count = n; > > + p = dta->filename; > > + for ( ; *p; p++) *p = toupper(*p); > > Using toupper is probably not a good idea on OEM codepage strings. Which > app depends on this? I'd also guess that 'p' is defined as 'char *'. The domain of toupper() isn't char, the value must be cast to 'unsigned char' (or the pointer to 'unsigned char *'). David -- David Laight: david(a)l8s.co.uk

May 30, 2012

Re: [2/2]kernel32/test: added test for OutputDebugStringA called with NULL pointer

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=18671 Your paranoid android. === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit debugger) === Timeout === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit debugger) === Timeout

May 30, 2012