March 2016 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Need some advice on shell32

by Alexandre Julliard

Mathy Vanvoorden <mathy(a)vanvoorden.be> writes: > So by that reasoning it would be better then to in shell32 implement a > 'simpler' version: show dotted files when the option is activated, but > do not hide stuff like /dev, /proc and WINEPREFIX (since they are > native to Unix)? That's probably better, yes. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

March 31, 2016

Re: ntoskrnl.exe: Make IoAllocateIrp not crash on negative values. (try 2)

by Sebastian Lackner

On 29.03.2016 22:13, Bernhard Übelacker wrote: > https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39734 > > This patch should avoid crash in acedrv11.sys. > IoAllocateIrp is called with a stack_size of -128. > Therefore ExAllocatePool gets a negative size value. > > Tested against Windows XP. > (See the test based on wine-staging "driver testing framework" attached to the bug.) > ( https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21722 testrun by Sebastian Lackner.) > > Try 1: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2016-March/148587.html > Review 1: https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2016-March/112476.html > > Changes since try 1: > - Fix usage of wrong variable. > - Use a better name for variable. > - Simplify if statement. > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Übelacker <bernhardu(a)vr-web.de> > --- > dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Thanks for the updated version. Could you maybe also add a couple of additional tests with charge_quota = TRUE? Since you are changing both versions, I'm fearing a bit that your changes could break other situations. If there are no unexpected test failures it looks good to me.

March 31, 2016

Re: [PATCH (try2)] setupapi: Fix spec entries for handle parameters

by Sebastian Lackner

On 30.03.2016 17:00, Andrew Eikum wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> > --- > > try2: Turns out there's a whole bunch more of these. I think I got > most/all of them. > > dlls/setupapi/setupapi.spec | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) Is there any specific reason why you want to change that? Using "long" for handles is usually perfectly fine and it depends on the exact implementation details if its a pointer or just an index into a handle table.

March 31, 2016

Re: [PATCH 4/4] mshtml: Added IHTMLElement::outerText tests.

by Jacek Caban

On 03/30/16 19:25, Marvin wrote: > 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://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21790 > > Your paranoid android. It seems that most IE version don't have limitation for usage with table elements, so there is no reason for us to have one. Please ignore the patch series, I will send better version tomorrow. Jacek

March 30, 2016

Re: [PATCH 4/4] mshtml: Added IHTMLElement::outerText 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 https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21790 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === wvistau64 (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w7u (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w7pro64 (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w8 (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w864 (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w1064 (32 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === wvistau64 (64 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w7pro64 (64 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w864 (64 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1 === w1064 (64 bit dom) === dom.c:6968: Test failed: put_outerText failed: 00000000 dom.c:6971: Test failed: expected len = 2, got 1

March 30, 2016

Re: Need some advice on shell32

by Mathy Vanvoorden

2016-03-30 4:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>: > The goal of the shell Unix folder is to show a view of the filesystem as > you would see it in a native Unix app, and it's using direct Unix calls > in order to do that. It allows showing symlinks, device files, etc. even > when we have to hide them in ntdll to avoid breaking apps. So I'm not > sure that replicating ntdll behavior's would be the right thing here. > So by that reasoning it would be better then to in shell32 implement a 'simpler' version: show dotted files when the option is activated, but do not hide stuff like /dev, /proc and WINEPREFIX (since they are native to Unix)?

March 30, 2016

Re: [PATCH] t2embed: Implement TTGetEmbeddingType()

by Nikolay Sivov

On 30.03.2016 13:05, Marvin wrote: > 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://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21774 > > Your paranoid android. > > > === build (build) === > Make failed > > Probably didn't pick up configure changes, and new tests dir.

March 30, 2016

Re: [PATCH] t2embed: Implement TTGetEmbeddingType()

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://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21774 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Make failed

March 30, 2016

Re: WineHQ upgrade breaking dinput8:dinput?

by Bernhard Übelacker

Hello Francois, Am 30.03.2016 um 09:46 schrieb Francois Gouget: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016, Francois Gouget wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016, Bernhard Übelacker wrote: > [...] >> one point that could be related is the usage of function local static >> variables. When all of these got the "static" removed, I do not get the >> failures anymore. However I could not prove this with testbot as an empty >> patch did also succeed. > > I have not found static directives that I could remove to fix the > dinput8 failures. Which test did it make a difference for? Could you > send a diff? > > All I could find to fix this is to add 'CFLAGS = -d -O0' in the test's > Makefile.in but that does seem like a nice workaround :-( I attached a diff to this mail or see https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21671 In my tests it started to fail in a vm when just one of these "statics" was left. Kind regards, Bernhard

March 30, 2016

Re: WineHQ upgrade breaking dinput8:dinput?

by Francois Gouget

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016, Francois Gouget wrote: On Fri, 25 Mar 2016, Bernhard Übelacker wrote: [...] > one point that could be related is the usage of function local static > variables. When all of these got the "static" removed, I do not get the > failures anymore. However I could not prove this with testbot as an empty > patch did also succeed. I have not found static directives that I could remove to fix the dinput8 failures. Which test did it make a difference for? Could you send a diff? All I could find to fix this is to add 'CFLAGS = -d -O0' in the test's Makefile.in but that does seem like a nice workaround :-( -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ You can have my guns when you pry them from my kids cold, dead hands.

March 30, 2016