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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22078
Your paranoid android.
=== WNT4WSSP6 (32 bit shlexec) ===
shlexec.c:1420: Test failed: ShellExecuteEx(mask="0x200", verb="Params23456", file="C:\TEMP\wt1.tmp\test file.shlexec", params="p2 "p3" "p4 is lost"): the cmdline is ' "p2" "p3" "p3" "" ""' instead of ' "p2" "p3" "" "" ""'
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit shlexec) ===
shlexec.c:1420: Test failed: ShellExecuteEx(mask="0x200", verb="Params23456", file="C:\DOCUME~1\winetest\LOCALS~1\Temp\wt1.tmp\test file.shlexec", params="p2 "p3" "p4 is lost"): the cmdline is ' "p2" "p3" "p3" "" ""' instead of ' "p2" "p3" "" "" ""'
On 10.10.2012 09:49, Nozomi Kodama wrote:
> math.c:2994: Test failed: Red: case 9, order 7: expected[10] = 0.000000,
> received -134495294795062701298349336420239278080.000000
> math.c:2994: Test failed: Red: case 9, order 7: expected[15] = 0.000000,
> received -131556728585661638158151798785793064960.000000
But the values are different each time? So no app could depend on the
returned values? Does this implementation return the same values? Is
everyone else ok with accessing the array out of bounds?
>
> + for (i = 0; i < order ; i++)
>
> + scale = cap[i] * coeff[i];
>
> + for (order = D3DXSH_MINORDER ; order <= D3DXSH_MAXORDER; order++)
Spaces. These are also in the D3DXSHEvalConeLight patch.
Is there a point against using the same coeff variables in
D3DXSHEvalConeLight and D3DXSHEvalSphericalLight? Maybe they should be
static or the capintegral simply should integrate the multiplication if
the capintegral function is only used in these two functions. I think
there is no need to add the same variables twice.
> + 2.0f * sqrtf(D3DX_PI / 7.0f), 2.0f / 3.0f * sqrtf(D3DX_PI),
2.0f * sqrt (D3DX_PI / 11.0f) };
sqrtf .... These are also in the D3DXSHEvalConeLight patch. Does the
compiler optimize the function call away to a constant value? If not it
may be better to use something like 1.7724538509f for sqrtf(pi)...
Cheers
Rico
On 10/10/12 19:42, Daniel Lehman wrote:
+ memcpy_s(*to_next, MB_LEN_MAX, buf, size);
You may use memory after to_end in this code. to_next buffer size
should be probably following:
memcpy_s(*to_next, to_end-to_next, buf, size);
Cheers,
Piotr
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22088
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22066
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22064
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22063
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22057
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply
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
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=22056
Your paranoid android.
=== WINEBUILD (build) ===
Patch failed to apply