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

Re: [2/3] DWrite: Implemented functions regarding text alignment. (try 2)

by Fabian Müntefering

Am 30.05.2013 19:49, schrieb Alexandre Julliard: > Fabian Müntefering <Cookiezzz97(a)gmx.de> writes: > >> @@ -1023,6 +1034,9 @@ HRESULT create_textformat(const WCHAR *family_name, IDWriteFontCollection *colle >> This->format.size = size; >> This->format.stretch = stretch; >> >> + /*Default values.*/ >> + This->format.text_align = 0; > Please use proper enum values when setting enum variables. > I will fix it as soon as possible.

May 30, 2013

Re: [2/3] DWrite: Implemented functions regarding text alignment. (try 2)

by Alexandre Julliard

Fabian Müntefering <Cookiezzz97(a)gmx.de> writes: > @@ -1023,6 +1034,9 @@ HRESULT create_textformat(const WCHAR *family_name, IDWriteFontCollection *colle > This->format.size = size; > This->format.stretch = stretch; > > + /*Default values.*/ > + This->format.text_align = 0; Please use proper enum values when setting enum variables. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

May 30, 2013

Re: [4/4] kernel32: Don't move fixed memory area in GlobalReAlloc. (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 http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=25774 Your paranoid android. === WVISTAX64 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found

May 30, 2013

Re: [1/4] kernel32: Add more GlobalReAlloc/LocalReAlloc tests.

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=25773 Your paranoid android. === WVISTAX64 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found === W7PROX64 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit heap) === No test summary line found

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Henri Verbeet

On 30 May 2013 07:23, Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. > It does if you add -Wunused-parameter, but then you'll get a lot of other warnings as well. IMO the "action = action;" line is pretty pointless and best just removed, though if people are just looking for a different workaround, "(void)action;" is more or less the standard way to do it.

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Joel Holdsworth

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 30/05/13 12:56, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. >>>>> It was probably added because of a tool that warned of the >>>>> unused parameter ... So it all goes in circles. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, Marcus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> So what about action = NULL instead? >>> A checker tool should be instructed to ignore that kind of a >>> warning instead. There are many legitimate cases when a >>> function doesn't use all of its parameters, in that cases there >>> is no need to take any special action to silence a warning >>> IMHO. >>> >> There is also __attribute__((unused_parameter)) but it's gcc >> specific. > > How is that better than 'unused = unused'? And it's even more > typing... > Just cast it to void: (void)unused_param; Thats the tidiest way IMHO. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRp0UeAAoJEIsWlGmq62Ig8mUH/06blo3lMqfU025dpA5NExVF mY/gTzccONBMP8uBxBey/qrwagG/zJI4Wq+nbDMRnoIEk9AayDqlL2KSVCcXQIH9 sTqQPLkpaYsfbvQixryWZ17W0y49Rmam3d9NzSlvVmjcKFcQuE8ke78wkIwMiOfN tJxKDwP4gETXH/867dWIVfdxB3LBGJpp2K02yspPW4lkTQ7u0WjKzElcm4icurQg W2vUVgvRJjcfPdiMpM2z99LJA83qnJifJ6Vf83qdqkf58oDqPVew59A9m8FFD4ev FGSq/o++UrJPvn27gOCmuIMC9L106FaABzP0euzuY8nlV5tlCyCBpw5nW3r4lVo= =8d7n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Christian Costa

Le 30/05/2013 13:56, Dmitry Timoshkov a écrit : > Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. >>>>> It was probably added because of a tool that warned of the unused >>>>> parameter ... So it all goes in circles. ;) >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, Marcus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> So what about action = NULL instead? >>> A checker tool should be instructed to ignore that kind of a warning >>> instead. There are many legitimate cases when a function doesn't use >>> all of its parameters, in that cases there is no need to take any >>> special action to silence a warning IMHO. >>> >> There is also __attribute__((unused_parameter)) but it's gcc specific. > How is that better than 'unused = unused'? And it's even more typing... > It's a compiler thing like const. It's quite long right. Unless using it through a macro like e.g UNUSED. Normally it is used for handlers whose implementations may not used some params. It may not be the best solution but this can of things exists.

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. > >>> It was probably added because of a tool that warned of the unused > >>> parameter ... So it all goes in circles. ;) > >>> > >>> Ciao, Marcus > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> So what about action = NULL instead? > > A checker tool should be instructed to ignore that kind of a warning > > instead. There are many legitimate cases when a function doesn't use > > all of its parameters, in that cases there is no need to take any > > special action to silence a warning IMHO. > > > There is also __attribute__((unused_parameter)) but it's gcc specific. How is that better than 'unused = unused'? And it's even more typing... -- Dmitry.

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Christian Costa

Le 30/05/2013 10:59, Dmitry Timoshkov a écrit : > Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. >>> It was probably added because of a tool that warned of the unused >>> parameter ... So it all goes in circles. ;) >>> >>> Ciao, Marcus >>> >>> >>> >> So what about action = NULL instead? > A checker tool should be instructed to ignore that kind of a warning > instead. There are many legitimate cases when a function doesn't use > all of its parameters, in that cases there is no need to take any > special action to silence a warning IMHO. > There is also __attribute__((unused_parameter)) but it's gcc specific.

May 30, 2013

Re: msvcrt: remove hack

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Christian Costa <titan.costa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> and no modern gcc/other compiler that I can find cares. > > It was probably added because of a tool that warned of the unused > > parameter ... So it all goes in circles. ;) > > > > Ciao, Marcus > > > > > > > So what about action = NULL instead? A checker tool should be instructed to ignore that kind of a warning instead. There are many legitimate cases when a function doesn't use all of its parameters, in that cases there is no need to take any special action to silence a warning IMHO. -- Dmitry.

May 30, 2013