http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Summary: Gangsters 2 Demo (German): Video test won't run Product: Wine Version: 1.2 Platform: x86 URL: http://www.pcgames.de/Gangsters-2-PC-16428/Downloads/G angsters-2-spielbare-Demoversion-9842/ OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: user32 AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: earns.61@gmail.com CC: julliard@winehq.org Regression SHA1: f1ea06375d76c9f8e181e3ee4874ddef661e80c2
Created attachment 36545 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=36545 An image you see when the video test is running
There is a regression in device context implemetation.
When you run the game for the first time you should see an image like the one attached here.
Regression test told
f1ea06375d76c9f8e181e3ee4874ddef661e80c2 is the first bad commit commit f1ea06375d76c9f8e181e3ee4874ddef661e80c2 Author: Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org Date: Thu Jul 22 20:00:35 2010 +0200
user32: DCX_NORESETATTRS should be applied at DC release time.
:040000 040000 dec10ae5d778f859fcc46984e0a01e2abbfba25b 8ffe15178f0ef46a091fed411153ab9e6da8cc36 M dlls
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Bruni earns.61@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, regression Version|1.2 |1.3.0
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #1 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2011-09-25 06:53:42 CDT --- Created attachment 36546 --> http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=36546 trace with wine-1.3.0
WINEDEBUG=+tid,+seh,+relay ~/wine-git/wine explorer /desktop=name,800x600 ./Gangsters2Demo.exe &> log.txt
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2011-09-25 14:42:22 CDT --- This looks like leftover garbage, more like a bad window refresh. The patch doesn't seem to have anything to do with this except change the timings. Do you really need to see this stuff? Do you see it on Windows?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #3 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2011-09-27 00:54:59 CDT --- That was actual data gotten during video test. Windows XP shows it and so did Wine prior to 1.3.0. Perhaps the patch simply don't give time enough to reveal that data.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #4 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2011-12-25 03:40:10 CST --- somewhere between 1.3.28 and 1.3.33 it was fixed but as of wine-1.3.35-168-g5b93bb9 the bug is back
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2011-12-25 04:49:21 CST --- Please do a new regression test then.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Bruni earns.61@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hverbeet@gmail.com Regression SHA1|f1ea06375d76c9f8e181e3ee487 |5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee78 |4ddef661e80c2 |7d5a9a288f85a
--- Comment #6 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-05 04:50:15 CST --- 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a is the first bad commit commit 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a Author: Henri Verbeet hverbeet@codeweavers.com Date: Tue Sep 13 20:02:25 2011 +0200
ddraw: Get rid of the unused "initialized" field in IDirectDrawImpl.
:040000 040000 4b4589f852778974d9543e4e37f728ad04099513 83a12a7138c35cec2bf005afb86af8e1dba21a14 M dlls
CC-ing Henri
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #7 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-05 05:29:01 CST --- That patch did cause a regression at the time, but ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff should have fixed it again.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #8 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-05 06:32:01 CST --- ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff dates back to September, 18, whereas the regression is present as of 1.3.36. Is there any chance that ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff envelops not all regressions caused by 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a ?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #9 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-05 06:53:27 CST --- (In reply to comment #8)
ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff dates back to September, 18, whereas the regression is present as of 1.3.36. Is there any chance that ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff envelops not all regressions caused by 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a ?
Maybe, but I'd be somewhat surprised. Does it work with ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff, or even just ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff applied on top of 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #10 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-05 07:21:13 CST --- The image of video test doesn't show up with ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff, but it is fine just before 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a I didn't understand just what you meant under "ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff applied on top of 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a"
I have one thought. What if a buggy commit of some third author was committed between 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a and ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #11 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-05 07:38:51 CST --- (In reply to comment #10)
I didn't understand just what you meant under "ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff applied on top of 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a"
Checkout 5de0203, then apply ec04f80 on top of that. E.g. by cherry picking it or doing something like "git show ec04f80 | git apply -".
I have one thought. What if a buggy commit of some third author was committed between 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a and ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff?
Yeah, that's what I wanted to test with applying ec04f80 on top of 5de0203.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #12 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-06 10:32:41 CST ---
Checkout 5de0203, then apply ec04f80 on top of that. E.g. by cherry picking it or doing something like "git show ec04f80 | git apply -".
What I did: git checkout 5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee787d5a9a288f85a git cherry-pick ec04f80cf606f07a630bfc515f004be9cc4679ff ./configure && make
-> video test works fine
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #13 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-06 10:44:18 CST --- It's probably one of the commits in between then. You can still bisect that, but it's a bit tedious because you have to apply ec04f80 after each step.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #14 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-06 11:11:05 CST ---
It's probably one of the commits in between then. You can still bisect that, but it's a bit tedious because you have to apply ec04f80 after each step.
Could you please explain this to me, why ec04f80 needs cherry-picking each time I move through git tree? Why can it not be so that ec04f80 takes effect for all subsequent commits in git once and for all?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #15 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-06 11:32:30 CST --- Well in principle you could probably do something like the following:
git branch bisect ec04f80 git checkout -b base 5de0203 git cherry-pick ec04f80 git checkout bisect git rebase base git branch -D base
and then bisect between HEAD and 5de0203. It's a bit more complicated though, and your commit ids won't match anymore, so after you're done with bisecting you'd then have to find the corresponding commit again in the original history.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #16 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-06 14:38:21 CST ---
git branch bisect ec04f80 git checkout -b base 5de0203 git cherry-pick ec04f80 git checkout bisect git rebase base git branch -D base
I'm a novice in git, but I think that doing "git rebase base" and than "git branch -D base" is wrong. Both ec04f80 and 5de0203 are not present in "bisect" by the time you delete "base". Instead, is this any good to do
git branch bisect ec04f80 git checkout -b base 5de0203 git cherry-pick ec04f80 git checkout bisect git merge base git bisect start git bisect good 5de0203 git bisect bad HEAD ... etc git branch -D bisect
What do you think?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #17 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-07 06:45:09 CST --- I found it. The problematic commit is http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commit/1aeee59bd8b6172c848c8029e1a55dd...
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Bruni earns.61@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regression SHA1|5de020342cc039819b6fe11ee78 |1aeee59bd8b6172c848c8029e1a |7d5a9a288f85a |55ddac1f93c44
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #18 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-13 12:01:24 CST --- afb64506ba0eb958af72d8535d8c5473f7fcc06e should fix the video test.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #19 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-14 11:17:21 CST --- fixed for as of 1.3.37 Also, the game is now partly playable.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
--- Comment #20 from Bruni earns.61@gmail.com 2012-01-14 11:19:19 CST --- fixed for me as of 1.3.37 Also, the game is now partly playable.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |afb64506ba0eb958af72d8535d8 | |c5473f7fcc06e Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #21 from Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com 2012-01-14 14:17:25 CST --- Resolving.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28491
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #22 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2012-01-27 14:17:43 CST --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.4-rc1.