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

Re: [PATCH 1/5] usp10: Resolve BNs and explicit formatting characters to the preceding level in resolveResolved().

by Henri Verbeet

On 18 May 2016 at 18:51, Marvin <testbot(a)winehq.org> wrote: > === w1064 (32 bit usp10) === > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 0: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 1: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 2: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 4: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 5: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 6: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 7: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 8: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 9: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fDiacritic incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fDiacritic incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) > > === w1064 (64 bit usp10) === > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 0: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 1: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 2: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 4: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 5: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 6: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 7: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 8: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 9: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fDiacritic incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fDiacritic incorrect (1) > usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) > Those are existing failures as far as I'm aware.

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 1/5] usp10: Resolve BNs and explicit formatting characters to the preceding level in resolveResolved().

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=23083 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit usp10) === usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 0: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 1: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 2: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 4: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 5: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 6: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 7: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 8: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 9: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fDiacritic incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fDiacritic incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) === w1064 (64 bit usp10) === usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 0: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 1: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 2: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 4: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 5: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 6: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 7: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 8: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1433: Test failed: 9: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 3: uJustification incorrect (0) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fDiacritic incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 5: fZeroWidth incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fDiacritic incorrect (1) usp10.c:1449: Test failed: 15: fZeroWidth incorrect (1)

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH 3/6] wininet: Use compose_request_url in INTERNET_OPTION_URL implementation.

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=23082 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Patch failed to apply

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] msvcr120/tests: Add critical section test.(resend)

by Piotr Caban

Hi, On 05/18/16 15:25, YongHao Hu wrote: > +#if _MSVCR_VER >= 110 _MSVCR_VER is not defined in tests. (I didn't look on rest of the patch yet) Thanks, Piotr

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] msvcr120/tests: Add critical section test.(resend)

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=23080 Your paranoid android. === w2008s64 (64 bit msvcr120) === Found no trace of the test summary line or of a crash

May 18, 2016

Re: shell32: Initialize all of wszDstPath in ISFHelper_fnCopyItems. ISFHelper_fnCopyItems.

by Alexandre Julliard

Gerald Pfeifer <gerald(a)pfeifer.com> writes: > wszDstPath is an array of WCHAR, which are wider than one byte, > so this should have been (MAXPATH+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) -- or the more > robust approach I here propose. Actually there's no reason to initialize the entire buffer. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] user32/scroll: Move GetDCEx to stop DC leak

by Alexandre Julliard

Alistair Leslie-Hughes <leslie_alistair(a)hotmail.com> writes: > @@ -920,9 +919,12 @@ static void SCROLL_HandleScrollEvent( HWND hwnd, INT nBar, UINT msg, POINT pt) > break; > > default: > + WARN("unsupported msg %s\n", SPY_GetMsgName(msg,hwnd)); > return; /* Should never happen */ > } > > + hdc = GetDCEx( hwnd, 0, DCX_CACHE | ((nBar == SB_CTL) ? 0 : DCX_WINDOW)); The function is only called for the messages it supports, so there's no need to add handling for other cases. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

May 18, 2016

Re: ddraw/tests: Fix a typo in an ok() call

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=23075 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

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] oleaut32 todo: formatting 0 with "000#"

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=23070 Your paranoid android. === build (build) === Patch failed to apply

May 18, 2016

Re: [PATCH] msxml3/tests: Simplify refcount checks

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=23060 Your paranoid android. === w1064 (32 bit httpreq) === httpreq.c:1628: Test failed: got 0x80070057, expected 0x00000000 === w1064 (64 bit httpreq) === httpreq.c:1628: Test failed: got 0x80070057, expected 0x00000000

May 17, 2016