January 2025 - Wine-GitLab - list.winehq.org

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] MR7192: ole32: Property storage improvements. - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7192

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] MR7190: kerberos: Update sizes to match modern implementations. - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7190

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] MR7197: propsys: Remove FIXME() from PropVariantChangeType(). - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7197

1 0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] MR7201: kernel32/tests: Match the value in the debug message the test condition. - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7201

1 0

Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] MR7193: crypt32: A refcount fix and cert enumeraton improvement. - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7193

1 0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] MR7196: msvcp140: Fix field order in _Mtx_t. - approved
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

This merge request was approved by Alexandre Julliard. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7196

1 0

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] MR7109: Added missing functions _FCbuild, cimag, crealf and cimagf
by Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

On Mon Jan 27 21:05:00 2025 +0000, Stéphane Bacri wrote: > Hello, Piotr. > Thanks for your review and comments. However, I'm unsure the issue is > there (and I have no other clue, because no window machine nor VM). I > agree that [MS > documentation](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/refe… > defines the signature you mention, but it is the same for _Cbuild, and I > used it as a template. I could have suspected the entries crealf(int64) > & cimagf(int64) to be the cause if it had been a 32 vs 64 bit issue. But > I don't understand why the difference is between windows & linux. > Moreover, I checked the stage log, and I see only zeroes in the failing > tests reports, which is weird, even with params size issues). > By the way, the positive thing is I figured out that > msvcr120_app/msvcr120_app.spec had to be updated. However, the current > build-linux stage seems to fail for reasons not related to the branch (I > tried to revert a commit then commit back after setting again my user > name & email, and still fails saying email not set when other stage do > not complain). Actually _Cbuild has the same problem, but it's less obvious since it will break only on non-x86 platforms. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7109#note_92977

1 0

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] MR7109: Added missing functions _FCbuild, cimag, crealf and cimagf
by Stéphane Bacri Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

Hello, Piotr. Thanks for your review and comments. However, I'm unsure the issue is there (and I have no other clue, because no window machine nor VM). I agree that [MS documentation](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/refe… defines the signature you mention, but it is the same for _Cbuild, and I used it as a template. I could have suspected the entries crealf(int64) & cimagf(int64) to be the cause if it had been a 32 vs 64 bit issue. But I don't understand why the difference is between windows & linux. Moreover, I checked the stage log, and I see only zeroes in the failing tests reports, which is weird, even with params size issues). By the way, the positive thing is I figured out that msvcr120_app/msvcr120_app.spec had to be updated. However, the current build-linux stage seems to fail for reasons not related to the branch (I tried to revert a commit then commit back after setting again my user name & email, and still fails saying email not set when other stage do not complain). -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7109#note_92974

1 0

[PATCH v12 0/2] MR7169: ntdll: Fix the return value of NtDelayExecution.
by William Horvath (＠whrvth) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

The key change is to never return STATUS_TIMEOUT, and to instead return the result of NtYieldExecution() if zero timeout was passed, or STATUS_SUCCESS otherwise. An overview of the correct values for each combination, copied from the test commit: - Non-alertable, zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS or STATUS_NO_YIELD_PERFORMED - Non-alertable, non-zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS - Alertable, zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS, STATUS_NO_YIELD_PERFORMED, or STATUS_USER_APC - Alertable, non-zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS or STATUS_USER_APC -- v12: ntdll: Fix the return value of NtDelayExecution. ntdll/tests: Add tests for NtDelayExecution and Sleep(Ex). https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7169

3 4

[PATCH v11 0/2] MR7169: ntdll: Fix the return value of NtDelayExecution.
by William Horvath (＠whrvth) Jan. 27, 2025

Jan. 27, 2025

The key change is to never return STATUS_TIMEOUT, and to instead return the result of NtYieldExecution() if zero timeout was passed, or STATUS_SUCCESS otherwise. An overview of the correct values for each combination, copied from the test commit: - Non-alertable, zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS or STATUS_NO_YIELD_PERFORMED - Non-alertable, non-zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS - Alertable, zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS, STATUS_NO_YIELD_PERFORMED, or STATUS_USER_APC - Alertable, non-zero timeout: STATUS_SUCCESS or STATUS_USER_APC -- v11: ntdll: Fix the return value of NtDelayExecution. ntdll/tests: Add tests for NtDelayExecution and Sleep(Ex). https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/7169

3 10