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

RE: regedit: Display REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN values
by Hugh McMaster March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

On Monday, March 28 2016, 21:05 UTC+11, Nikolay Sivov wrote: >On 28.03.2016 12:52, Hugh McMaster wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Hugh McMaster >> --- >> programs/regedit/listview.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/programs/regedit/listview.c b/programs/regedit/listview.c >> index c0119ff..5b1bd80 100644 >> --- a/programs/regedit/listview.c >> +++ b/programs/regedit/listview.c >> @@ -174,6 +174,19 @@ static void AddEntryToList(HWND hwndLV, LPWSTR Name, DWORD dwValType, >> ListView_SetItemTextW(hwndLV, index, 2, buf); >> } >> break; >> + case REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN: { >> + DWORD i, value = 0; >> + BYTE *data = ValBuf; >> + WCHAR buf[64]; >> + WCHAR fmt[] = {'0','x','%','0','8','x',' ','(','%','u',')',0}; >> + for (i = 0; i < dwCount; i++) { >> + value <<= 8; >> + value |= data[i]; >> + } >> + sprintfW(buf, fmt, value, value); >> + ListView_SetItemTextW(hwndLV, index, 2, buf); >> + } >> + break; >> case REG_BINARY: { >> unsigned int i; >> LPBYTE pData = ValBuf; >> >dwCount is always 1 in this case, dwCount is 4 for REG_DWORD and REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN. >so it could be simplified to the point of swapping 'value' and >falling through to REG_DWORD case. I didn't check tests, but >you sure you need to modify what RegQueryValueExW() returns? On Windows, regedit displays the REG_DWORD type in little endian order and the REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN type in big endian order. But both "reg query" and RegQueryValueEx() return any type of DWORD in little endian order. While it is true that there is common code in REG_DWORD and the BIG_ENDIAN case, I'm not sure there is a clean way to handle the endianness without checking for and handling the value type a second time.

1 0

[GSoC] Mailinglist discussions
by André Hentschel March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

Hi, This year it's not possible to communicate with the GSoC Students over the GSoC-Project site. I guess the reason is to force communication with the community. Thus I suggest to move the discussions to wine-devel and prefix them with [GSoC] Thx

3 2

Re: msvcirt: Avoid superfluous comparison in some compilers
by Henri Verbeet March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

On 27 March 2016 at 13:57, Iván Matellanes <matellanesivan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > - if (dir < SEEKDIR_beg || dir > SEEKDIR_end || !(mode & (OPENMODE_in|OPENMODE_out))) > + if ((dir != SEEKDIR_beg && dir != SEEKDIR_cur && dir != SEEKDIR_end) || !(mode & (OPENMODE_in|OPENMODE_out))) I'm not sure you're really making it better by adding another comparison. One alternative you may want to consider is just "(unsigned int)dir > SEEKDIR_end".

2 1

Re: regedit: Display REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN values
by Nikolay Sivov March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

On 28.03.2016 12:52, Hugh McMaster wrote: > Signed-off-by: Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> > --- > programs/regedit/listview.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/programs/regedit/listview.c b/programs/regedit/listview.c > index c0119ff..5b1bd80 100644 > --- a/programs/regedit/listview.c > +++ b/programs/regedit/listview.c > @@ -174,6 +174,19 @@ static void AddEntryToList(HWND hwndLV, LPWSTR Name, DWORD dwValType, > ListView_SetItemTextW(hwndLV, index, 2, buf); > } > break; > + case REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN: { > + DWORD i, value = 0; > + BYTE *data = ValBuf; > + WCHAR buf[64]; > + WCHAR fmt[] = {'0','x','%','0','8','x',' ','(','%','u',')',0}; > + for (i = 0; i < dwCount; i++) { > + value <<= 8; > + value |= data[i]; > + } > + sprintfW(buf, fmt, value, value); > + ListView_SetItemTextW(hwndLV, index, 2, buf); > + } > + break; > case REG_BINARY: { > unsigned int i; > LPBYTE pData = ValBuf; > dwCount is always 1 in this case, so it could be simplified to the point of swapping 'value' and falling through to REG_DWORD case. I didn't check tests, but you sure you need to modify what RegQueryValueExW() returns?

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

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=21718 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit shlfolder) === shlfolder.c:1591: Test failed: IShellFolder_GetDisplayNameOf(NULL) failed! hr = 80070057 === w1064 (64 bit shlfolder) === shlfolder.c:1591: Test failed: IShellFolder_GetDisplayNameOf(NULL) failed! hr = 80070057

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

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=21717 Your paranoid android. === w864 (64 bit device) === device.c:4317: Test failed: cw is 0xf60, expected 0x7f. device.c:4326: Test failed: Callback cw is 0xf60, expected 0x7f. === w1064 (64 bit device) === device.c:4317: Test failed: cw is 0xf60, expected 0x7f. device.c:4326: Test failed: Callback cw is 0xf60, expected 0x7f.

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 27, 2016

March 27, 2016

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=21714 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w2008s64 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w7u (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w7pro64 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w8 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w864 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === w1064 (32 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0042D889 === wvistau64 (64 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000426C3A === w2008s64 (64 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000426C3A === w7pro64 (64 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000426C3A === w864 (64 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000426C3A === w1064 (64 bit moniker) === moniker: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000426C3A

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 27, 2016

March 27, 2016

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=21712 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit security) === security.c:3964: Test failed: MACHINE\Software owner SID (S-1-5-18) != Administrators SID (S-1-5-32-544). security.c:4018: Test failed: Builtin Admins ACE has unexpected flags (0xa != 0x0) === w1064 (32 bit security) === security.c:3964: Test failed: MACHINE\Software owner SID (S-1-5-18) != Administrators SID (S-1-5-32-544). security.c:4005: Test failed: Builtin Users ACE has unexpected flags (0x12 != 0xa) security.c:4009: Test failed: Builtin Users ACE has unexpected mask (0x20019 != 0x80000000) security.c:4018: Test failed: Builtin Admins ACE has unexpected flags (0x12 != 0x0) === w1064 (64 bit security) === security.c:4005: Test failed: Builtin Users ACE has unexpected flags (0x2 != 0xa) security.c:4009: Test failed: Builtin Users ACE has unexpected mask (0x20019 != 0x80000000) security.c:4018: Test failed: Builtin Admins ACE has unexpected flags (0x2 != 0x0)

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 27, 2016

March 27, 2016

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=21705 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. === w1064 (64 bit uri) === uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:7613: Test failed: GetPropertyBSTR returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001. On uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:7615: Test failed: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" on uri_tests[71]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.uk.1 but got L"uk.1" on uri_tests[73]. uri.c:7798: Test failed: Error: GetDomain returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected but got L".uk" on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:7800: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.[] but got L"com.[]" on uri_tests[77]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[71].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 11 but got 4 on uri_tests[73].str_props[3]. uri.c:8078: Test failed: Error: GetPropertyLength returned 0x00000000, expected 0x00000001 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 0 but got 3 on uri_tests[76].str_props[3]. uri.c:8080: Test failed: Error: Expected a length of 13 but got 6 on uri_tests[77].str_props[3]. uri.c:8147: Test failed: Error: Received flag for property 3 when not expected on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:8197: Test failed: Error: Wasn't expecting to have property 3 on uri_tests[76]. uri.c:10487: Test failed: Error: Expected google.com.uk but got L"com.uk" instead on uri_parse_tests[42]. uri.c:10490: Test failed: Error: Expected 13, but got 6 instead on uri_parse_tests[42].

1 0

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.
by Marvin March 27, 2016

March 27, 2016

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=21704 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit action) === The test timed out

1 0