- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Wine staging 7.13 release
by Alistair Leslie-Hughes July 16, 2022

July 16, 2022

Binary packages for various distributions will be available from: https://www.winehq.org/download Summary since last release * Rebased to current wine 7.13 (543 patches are applied to wine vanilla) Upstreamed (Either directly from staging or fixed with a similar patch). * None Added: * None Updated: * None Where can you help * Run Steam/Battle.net/GOG/UPlay/Epic * Test your favorite game. * Test your favorite applications. * Improve staging patches and get them accepted upstream. As always, if you find a bug, please report it via https://bugs.winehq.org Best Regards Alistair.

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] msvcrt: add support for C++11 operator "" in demangling
by Marvin July 16, 2022

July 16, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119164 Your paranoid android. === w1064v1507 (32 bit report) === ucrtbase: cpp.c:207: Test failed: unDName returned "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" for #2 === w1064v1507 (64 bit report) === ucrtbase: cpp.c:207: Test failed: unDName returned "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" for #2

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/3] taskschd: Return SCHED_S_TASK_HAS_NOT_RUN from regtask_get_LastRunTime() stub.
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119160 Your paranoid android. === w7u_adm (32 bit report) === taskschd: scheduler.c:791: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:787: Test failed: 1: expected 0, got 0x800700b7 scheduler.c:787: Test failed: 2: expected 0x80070002, got 0 scheduler.c:791: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:791: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:807: Test failed: RegisterTask error 0x800700b7 scheduler.c:953: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:955: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:958: Test failed: expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got 0x80070005

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] schedsvc: Read task enable state from XML in SchRpcGetTaskInfo().
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119159 Your paranoid android. === w7u_adm (32 bit report) === taskschd: scheduler.c:790: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:786: Test failed: 1: expected 0, got 0x800700b7 scheduler.c:786: Test failed: 2: expected 0x80070002, got 0 scheduler.c:790: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:790: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:806: Test failed: RegisterTask error 0x800700b7 scheduler.c:937: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:939: Test failed: DeleteTask error 0x80070005 scheduler.c:942: Test failed: expected ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got 0x80070005

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/5] ws2_32/tests: Add more tests for SO_CONNECT_TIME.
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119152 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (32 bit Japanese:Japan report) === ws2_32: sock.c:6295: Test succeeded inside todo block: expected timeout

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] shell32: Implement SHOpenFolderAndSelectItems().
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119127 Your paranoid android. === w1064_2qxl (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:5008: Test failed: Didn't expect a WM_USER_NOTIFY message (event: 2) === w10pro64 (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: MKDIR: expected notification type 8, got: 40000 === w10pro64_ar (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000 === w10pro64_ja (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000 shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: MKDIR: expected notification type 8, got: 40000 === w10pro64_zh_CN (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] shell32/tests: Add SHOpenFolderAndSelectItems() tests.
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119126 Your paranoid android. === w1064v1809 (32 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000 === w1064v1809 (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000 === w1064 (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: MKDIR: expected notification type 8, got: 40000 === w10pro64_en_AE_u8 (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: RMDIR: expected notification type 10, got: 40000 === w10pro64_ar (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:4991: Test failed: MKDIR: expected notification type 8, got: 40000 === w10pro64_ja (64 bit report) === shell32: shlfolder.c:5008: Test failed: Didn't expect a WM_USER_NOTIFY message (event: 2)

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ws2_32: Add ipv4 raw socket protocol info.
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119099 Your paranoid android. === w1064v1507 (32 bit report) === ws2_32: protocol.c:2067: Test failed: wait failed protocol.c:2069: Test failed: overlapped result is 10036 protocol.c:2071: Test failed: overlapped.Internal = 2734 protocol.c:2073: Test failed: got 0

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ntdll: Support SOCK_RAW / IPPROTO_ICMP fallback over SOCK_DGRAM.
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The tests also ran into some preexisting test failures. If you know how to fix them that would be helpful. See the TestBot job for the details: The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119101 Your paranoid android. === debian11 (64 bit WoW report) === ntdll: change.c:241: Test failed: should be ready

1 0

Re: [PATCH 5/5] dlls/msvcrt: fix demangling of variables being an array
by Marvin July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Hi, It looks like your patch introduced the new failures shown below. Please investigate and fix them before resubmitting your patch. If they are not new, fixing them anyway would help a lot. Otherwise please ask for the known failures list to be updated. The full results can be found at: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=119098 Your paranoid android. === w7u_2qxl (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w7u_adm (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w7u_el (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w8 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w8adm (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w864 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064v1507 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064v1809 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064_tsign (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64 (32 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w864 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064v1507 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064v1809 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064_2qxl (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064_adm (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w1064_tsign (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64_en_AE_u8 (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64_ar (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64_ja (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)" === w10pro64_zh_CN (64 bit report) === msvcrt: cpp.c:1308: Test failed: 132: Got name "??__K_l@@YA?AUCC@@I(a)Z" cpp.c:1311: Test failed: 132: Expected "struct CC __cdecl operator "" _l(unsigned int)"

1 0