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

Re: [PATCH 3/5] user32: Don't enable owner in DIALOG_DoDialogBox.
by Dmitry Timoshkov April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > --- a/dlls/user32/controls.h > +++ b/dlls/user32/controls.h > @@ -241,7 +241,6 @@ typedef struct tagDIALOGINFO > } DIALOGINFO; > > #define DF_END 0x0001 > -#define DF_OWNERENABLED 0x0002 As I already mentioned during our conversation in wine-devel my (not yet submitted) tests show that completely removing DF_OWNERENABLED handling is wrong. And once again I'd like to see the tests submitted first with todo_wine statements in appropriate places, and the patches sent only after that with separate fixes for every failure found by the tests. Sending a bunch of tests as the final patch doesn't show what didn't actually work before, and what exactly has been fixed by the patch series. -- Dmitry.

2 8

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22037 Your paranoid android. === 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.

2 1

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22051 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit action) === The test timed out === wvistau64 (64 bit action) === The test timed out

2 1

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22050 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].

2 1

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22042 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)

2 1

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22036 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

2 1

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message spelling fixes.
by Marvin April 11, 2016

April 11, 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=22052 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

2 1

Experimental 64 bit OS X packages ready for testing
by Michael Müller April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

Hi all, recently there were multiple requests to provide experimental OS X 64 bit packages. I decided to give it a try and updated our build system and cross compiling toolchain during the last days. Luckily the whole idea turned out to be less difficult than I thought, and I can now present you the first 64-bit Wine packages for testing. It would be great to have some testers to find out if I made a mistake during the packaging and to evaluate how good the OS X 64 bit support already works, despite the GS segment / TEB problem. You can find the test packages at https://repos.wine-staging.com/macosx/beta/. I didn't use the WineHQ url because those packages are really in a very early stage, so I would like to have some more testers first before we push it to the users. The pkg installer will now provide you with an option to enable 64 bit support. The files of the 32-bit and 64-bit build are merged during the installation depending on your choice. Please test both options to ensure that a pure 32-bit build also still works as expected. The wine devel package is a pure 1.9.7 build without any additional patches applied, while the staging package contains a small hack to work around at least some of the GS segment issues (it fixed 64 bit VLC and TS3 for me). If you stumble upon any differences between both packages (besides the staged bugs), feel free to tell them to me. This way I can find out how much the hack breaks ;-). Anyway, I am looking forward to your feedback. The checksums are: 272d0fc6ccc390c99b8457c8a433953555f517e0ebbdfe68d7070de377c9fcb4 winehq-devel-1.9.7.pkg eb381ff8aec9e3c82576f941b9918f36185c17f921f0c6c93d6d97033cc0b303 winehq-staging-1.9.7.pkg BTW: Are there any news regarding the developer certificate, so we can sign the packages? I have not heard anything since about four months ago when there was the idea to ask the SFC. Regards, Michael

4 6

Re: [PATCH 5/6] d3d9/tests: Add some more surface GetDC() tests to test_getdc().
by Marvin April 10, 2016

April 10, 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=22024 Your paranoid android. === 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: [PATCH 4/6] ddraw/tests: Add some more surface GetDC() tests to test_getdc().
by Marvin April 10, 2016

April 10, 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=22023 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw2) === ddraw2.c:2360: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw1) === The test timed out === w1064 (32 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw7) === ddraw7.c:2275: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w864 (32 bit dsurface) === dsurface.c:144: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:178: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:357: Test failed: Surface data after srckey blit does not match dsurface.c:382: Test failed: Surface data after src override key blit does not match dsurface.c:436: Test failed: Surface data after dest key blit does not match dsurface.c:462: Test failed: Surface data after dest key override blit does not match dsurface.c:524: Test failed: Surface data with src key and dest key blit does not match === w1064 (32 bit dsurface) === dsurface.c:144: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:178: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:357: Test failed: Surface data after srckey blit does not match dsurface.c:382: Test failed: Surface data after src override key blit does not match dsurface.c:436: Test failed: Surface data after dest key blit does not match dsurface.c:462: Test failed: Surface data after dest key override blit does not match dsurface.c:524: Test failed: Surface data with src key and dest key blit does not match === w1064 (64 bit dsurface) === dsurface.c:144: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:178: Test failed: Destination data after blitting is not correct dsurface.c:357: Test failed: Surface data after srckey blit does not match dsurface.c:382: Test failed: Surface data after src override key blit does not match dsurface.c:436: Test failed: Surface data after dest key blit does not match dsurface.c:462: Test failed: Surface data after dest key override blit does not match dsurface.c:524: Test failed: Surface data with src key and dest key blit does not match === w1064 (32 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw4) === ddraw4.c:2545: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}.

1 0