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

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message 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=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)

April 11, 2016

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message 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=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.

April 11, 2016

Re: Assorted comment, trace and ok() message 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=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

April 11, 2016

Re: [PATCH 3/5] user32: Don't enable owner in DIALOG_DoDialogBox.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > On 04/06/16 15:24, Jacek Caban wrote: > > Could you share those tests (WIP is fine) or run my patches against them? > > Ping. Did you have a chance to run those tests? No. But since you already know that removing DF_OWNERENABLED handling is wrong it shouldn't be too hard to add appropriate tests. -- Dmitry.

April 10, 2016

Re: user32/tests: Add some tests for dialog owner disabled state. (v3)

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > > if (style_in & WS_CHILD) > > - parent = CreateWindowExA(0, "static", NULL, WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW, > > + { > > + grand_parent = CreateWindowExA(0, "static", NULL, WS_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW, > > 0, 0, 0, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > + ok(grand_parent != 0, "grand_parent creation failed\n"); > > + } > > + > > + parent = CreateWindowExA(0, "static", NULL, style_in, > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, grand_parent, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > + ok(parent != 0, "parent creation failed, style %#x\n", style_in); > > Always creating window here changes existing tests. It's not a big deal, > I wouldn't expect it to change much, but still, the case that's > currently tested will no longer be tested. The thing which currently is being tested are the dialog styles that don't depend on the dialog parent. Regarding any possible additional tests or moving some logic around: as the patch subject says these tests don't pretend to be perfect or exhaustive set of tests, they simply test some things I was interested in, and as always with every test there are things that could be added or changed. -- Dmitry.

April 10, 2016

Re: Experimental 64 bit OS X packages ready for testing

by Austin English

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Michael Müller <michael(a)fds-team.de> wrote: > 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. That's where it stands as of now. The Wine committee approved the expense, but given that there's a legal agreement involved, we need to involve the SFC. I've pinged Bradley about it, hopefully that will get things rolling. Please ping me if you don't hear anything in a few weeks, in case I forget :) -- -Austin

April 10, 2016

Re: [PATCH 5/6] d3d9/tests: Add some more surface GetDC() tests to test_getdc().

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=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.

April 10, 2016

Re: [PATCH 4/6] ddraw/tests: Add some more surface GetDC() tests to test_getdc().

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=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}.

April 10, 2016

Re: [PATCH 3/6] ddraw/tests: Rewrite GetDCFormatTest().

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=22022 Your paranoid android. === 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}. === 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 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}. === w1064 (32 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}. === w1064 (64 bit ddraw1) === ddraw1.c:2209: Test failed: Expected {0, 0, 512, 384}, got {0, 0, 1024, 768}.

April 10, 2016

Re: [PATCH] d3d11: Support NULL DepthStecilView pointer in ClearDepthStencilView

by Henri Verbeet

On 10 April 2016 at 12:15, Alistair Leslie-Hughes <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > --- > dlls/d3d11/device.c | 3 +++ > dlls/d3d11/tests/d3d11.c | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > Before you resend this with the proper sign-off, could you please check d3d10 and the other clears (uav, rtv) as well?

April 10, 2016