October 2013 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [5/5] ws2_32: Always return the source address from WSAAccept.

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2610 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (c8): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (618): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 74AA9799 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (600): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000000000

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [4/5] ws2_32: Return an error from accept if the address buffer is too small.

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2609 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (c8): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (520): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 74AA9799 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (78c): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [3/5] ws2_32: Add some tests for getpeername.

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2608 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (c8): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 71AB8D62 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (320): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 74AA9799 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:509: Test failed: oob_server (808): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (808): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [2/5] ws2_32: Always clear res on error in getaddrinfo/GetAddrInfoW.

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2607 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (108): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 71AB8D62 === w2008s64 (32 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (7c4): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0 sock: unhandled exception c0000005 at 74AA9799 === w2008s64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:519: Test failed: oob_server (470): unexpectedly at the OOB mark: 0

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [1/2] gdi32: Fix the B spacing value of empty glyph. (try 3)

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2605 Your paranoid android. === wvista (32 bit font) === The test timed out === w2008s64 (32 bit font) === Failure running script in VM: network read timed out

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [2/2] gdi32: Don't modify output glyph metrics unless the function succeeds. (resend)

by Alexandre Julliard

Akihiro Sagawa <sagawa.aki(a)gmail.com> writes: > --- > dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 12 ++++++++---- > dlls/gdi32/tests/font.c | 5 +++++ > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) It looks like something is not quite right, this is causing strange spacing, for instance in the About dialog. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: I'm not sure why it was rejected

by Vincent Povirk

> I guess if you SetLastError to not implemented you cannot return S_OK too It doesn't make sense to use SetLastError at all for functions returning HRESULT.

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [PATCH 4/7] msvcr90/tests: Use the W form of CreateEvent().

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2457 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit msvcr90) === No test summary line found

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: [PATCH 2/7] qedit/tests: Use the W version of FindResource().

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=2455 Your paranoid android. === w2008s64 (32 bit mediadet) === mediadet.c:149: Test failed: CoCreateInstance failed: 80040154 mediadet: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0040184A === w2008s64 (64 bit mediadet) === mediadet.c:149: Test failed: CoCreateInstance failed: 80040154 mediadet: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00000000004017A3

Oct. 2, 2013

Re: I'm not sure why it was rejected

by Marcus Meissner

On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:26:51PM -0300, Bruno Jesus wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Akira Nakagawa <matyapiro31(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I cannnot make sure my patch 99266 was rejected. > > I can't really tell why it was rejected but I can tell there are mixed > space/tabs in the SetLastError lines. > > I guess if you SetLastError to not implemented you cannot return S_OK too > > Try comparing your patch with other patches that added new dlls. It > looks like you're missing the changes in configure and Makefile.in. > http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=new+dll no, he is not as they are autogenerated. Last open issue was the incorrect licenses. Ciao, Marcus

Oct. 2, 2013