July 2017 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH 1/3] user32/tests: Add tests for activating windows.
by Marvin July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

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=32241 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00020152 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00020152 === w2003std (32 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 000400F6 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 000400F6 === wvistau64 (32 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00050120 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00050120 === w2008s64 (32 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 00080124 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 00080124 === w7u (32 bit win) === win.c:999: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 00A70144 fg 000B0188 in hook HCBT_MINMAX win.c:999: Test failed: wrong dwWindowStatus: 0000 != 0001 active 000700F8 fg 000B0188 in hook HCBT_MINMAX win.c:9962: Test failed: expected 000B00F0, got 000801AA win.c:9981: Test failed: expected 000B00F0, got 000801AA === wvistau64 (64 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 0000000000050120 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 0000000000050120 === w2008s64 (64 bit win) === win.c:9940: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 0000000000080124 win.c:9940: Test failed: GetFocus() = 0000000000080124 === w7pro64 (64 bit win) === win.c:9947: Test failed: expected 00000000000B015E, got 0000000000050024

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/6] gdiplus: Support GdipSetSmoothingMode in metafiles
by Vincent Povirk July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

According to the spec, SmoothingModeHighSpeed also does no antialiasing.

2 1

Re: [PATCH 7/9] msvcr120: Add erfc.
by Piotr Caban July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

On 07/10/17 06:55, Alex Henrie wrote: > /********************************************************************* > + * erfc (MSVCR120.@) > + */ > +double CDECL MSVCR120_erfc(double x) > +{ > +#ifdef HAVE_ERFC > + return erfc(x); > +#else > + FIXME( "not implemented\n" ); > + return 0.0; > +#endif You can return 1.0 - MSVCR120_erf(x) if erfc is not available. Thanks, Piotr

2 2

Re: winhttp/tests: Make notification tests more strict.
by Marvin July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

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=32231 Your paranoid android. === w7pro64 (32 bit notification) === notification.c:219: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 219: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:226: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:236: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:248: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 8. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:282: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 1. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 282: expected function 2 got 1 notification.c:315: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 315: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 315: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:322: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:332: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 341: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 341: expected function 1 got 8 === w1064 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:219: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 219: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:226: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:236: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:248: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 8. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:282: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 1. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 282: expected function 2 got 1 notification.c:315: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 315: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 315: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:322: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:332: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/4] msvcp140: Implement _Stat and _Lstat.
by Marvin July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

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=32230 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit msvcp140) === 0504:msvcp140: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00000000 === wvistau64 (64 bit msvcp140) === 0504:msvcp140: unhandled exception c0000005 at 0000000000000000

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] advapi32/tests: Statically link to ConvertSidToStringSidA()
by Dmitry Timoshkov July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > -static BOOL (WINAPI *pConvertSidToStringSidA)( PSID pSid, LPSTR *str ); > static BOOL (WINAPI *pConvertStringSidToSidA)( LPCSTR str, PSID pSid ); ... > - pConvertSidToStringSidA = (void *)GetProcAddress(hmod, "ConvertSidToStringSidA"); > pConvertStringSidToSidA = (void *)GetProcAddress(hmod, "ConvertStringSidToSidA"); ... > - if( !pConvertSidToStringSidA || !pConvertStringSidToSidA ) > + if( !pConvertStringSidToSidA ) What's so special about ConvertSidToStringSidA and why same logic won't apply to ConvertStringSidToSidA and possibly others? -- Dmitry.

2 2

Re: [PATCH 7/7] gdiplus: Add EMF+ properties records tests
by Piotr Caban July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

On 07/11/17 11:42, Piotr Caban wrote: > Signed-off-by: Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com> > --- > dlls/gdiplus/tests/metafile.c | 78 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+) > I've sent it incorrectly so it wasn't picked by testbot. Here are the results: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=32226 Thanks, Piotr

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/6] gdiplus: Support GdipSetPixelOffsetMode in metafiles
by Dmitry Timoshkov July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > + if(graphics->pixeloffset == mode) > + return Ok; This particular change would need an approproate test case to confirm that repetitive GdipSetPixelOffsetMode() calls with the same value won't generate new records. Same applies to other patches in the series. -- Dmitry.

1 1

Re: [PATCH 1/7] d3dx9/tests: Add test for skip_constants effect parameter.
by Matteo Bruni July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

2017-07-06 13:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > +static void test_effect_skip_constants(IDirect3DDevice9 *device) > +{ > + HRESULT hr; > + ID3DXEffect *effect; > + unsigned int passes_count; > + D3DXVECTOR4 fvect; > + unsigned int i; > + > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, "v3", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + todo_wine > + ok(hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); > + if (SUCCEEDED(hr)) > + effect->lpVtbl->Release(effect); > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, "v4", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + todo_wine > + ok(hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); > + if (SUCCEEDED(hr)) > + effect->lpVtbl->Release(effect); > + > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, " v1#,.+-= &\t\nv2*/!\"'v5 v6[1]", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + ok(hr == D3D_OK, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); Maybe also add a test with the "expected" syntax for the skip_constants parameters? MSDN mentions a semicolon-separated list. Of course it's not strictly needed, given this test... > + > + todo_wine > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v1", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + todo_wine > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v2", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v3", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v4", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v5", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); What about "v6"?

2 1

Re: [PATCH 5/7] d3dx9: Fail effect creation when shader parameter evaluator creation fails.
by Matteo Bruni July 11, 2017

July 11, 2017

2017-07-06 13:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > @@ -6099,8 +6100,9 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_parse_resource(struct d3dx9_base_effect *base, const char * > { > if (FAILED(hr = d3dx9_create_object(base, object))) > return hr; > - d3dx_create_param_eval(base, object->data, object->size, param->type, > - &param->param_eval, get_version_counter_ptr(base)); > + if (FAILED(hr = d3dx_create_param_eval(base, object->data, object->size, param->type, > + &param->param_eval, get_version_counter_ptr(base)))) > + return hr; > } > break; > > @@ -6138,8 +6140,11 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_parse_resource(struct d3dx9_base_effect *base, const char * It looks like you missed another call to d3dx_create_param_eval() in between these two.

2 1