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

Re: msvcirt: Avoid superfluous comparison in some compilers

by Iván Matellanes

On 27/03/16 23:30, Henri Verbeet wrote: > 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". Yes, a cast should do the trick, I will resend. Thanks. Iván

March 28, 2016

Re: regedit: Display REG_DWORD_BIG_ENDIAN values

by Nikolay Sivov

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?

March 28, 2016

Re: ntoskrnl.exe: Make IoAllocateIrp not crash on negative values.

by Sebastian Lackner

On 27.03.2016 20:27, Bernhard Übelacker wrote: > https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39734 > > Changes should avoid crash in acedrv11.sys. > IoAllocateIrp is called with a stack_size of -128. > > Tested against Windows XP. > (See the test based on wine-staging "driver testing framework".) For reference, here a testbot run which confirms that the change is correct (for XP/2003): https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21722 > > Signed-off-by: Bernhard Übelacker <bernhardu(a)vr-web.de> > --- > dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c > index 36488a7..f2ccc61 100644 > --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c > +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/ntoskrnl.c > @@ -592,15 +592,20 @@ PIRP WINAPI IoAllocateIrp( CCHAR stack_size, BOOLEAN charge_quota ) > { > SIZE_T size; > PIRP irp; > + CCHAR _stack_size = stack_size; > > TRACE( "%d, %d\n", stack_size, charge_quota ); > > - size = sizeof(IRP) + stack_size * sizeof(IO_STACK_LOCATION); > + if (_stack_size <= 0 || (_stack_size > 1 && stack_size < 8)) > + _stack_size = 8; I would suggest to use a different variable, its very easy to mix up "stack_size" and "_stack_size". You even mixed it up yourself in the if() condition above. ;) If you want, you can also simplify the condition to (stack_size < 8 && stack_size != 1). > + > + size = sizeof(IRP) + _stack_size * sizeof(IO_STACK_LOCATION); > irp = ExAllocatePool( NonPagedPool, size ); > if (irp == NULL) > return NULL; > IoInitializeIrp( irp, size, stack_size ); > - irp->AllocationFlags = IRP_ALLOCATED_FIXED_SIZE; > + if (stack_size >= 1 && stack_size <= 8) > + irp->AllocationFlags = IRP_ALLOCATED_FIXED_SIZE; > if (charge_quota) > irp->AllocationFlags |= IRP_LOOKASIDE_ALLOCATION; > return irp; >

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=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

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=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.

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=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

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=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)

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=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].

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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

March 28, 2016

Re: Assorted spelling fixes.

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=21702 Your paranoid android. === w864 (32 bit d3d) === d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 2031 differences at 0 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 518 differences at 1 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 138 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 46 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2510: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 257 differences d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 256 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 64 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 16 differences at 4 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 4 differences at 5 level === w1064 (32 bit d3d) === d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 2031 differences at 0 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 518 differences at 1 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 138 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2326: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 46 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2510: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 257 differences d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 256 differences at 2 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 64 differences at 3 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 16 differences at 4 level d3d.c:2657: Test failed: Unexpected destination texture level pixels; 4 differences at 5 level

March 28, 2016