wine-devel February 2012

wine-devel@winehq.org

77 participants
169 discussions

ID3DXBaseEffect::SetValue
by Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

The functin returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL whenever it is tried on a parameter with elements. A check should be included. Luis

2 3

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 5)
by Dmitry Timoshkov 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

Adam Martinson <adam.r.martinson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at all.) > Fixes bug 26924. Much better now, thanks. -- Dmitry.

1 0

Re: user32: Fix a couple of typos.
by Marvin 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

1 0

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 5)
by Marvin 07 Feb '12

07 Feb '12

1 0

ID3DXEffect::SetValue
by Luis Carlos Busquets Pérez 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

The current implementation includes a check on param->bytes >= bytes specifically: if (data && param->bytes >= bytes) { ... } So if bytes<param->bytes returns D3DERR_INVALIDCALL. However, the MS version does not act that way: If the parameter is shorter than the length of the data, then the data that fits in the parameter is put and returns D3D_OK Therefore, the check of the size should be eliminated and in memcpy instead of referring to bytes, it should refer to min(bytes, param->bytes) Luis

3 2

Re: (try2) quartz: AMFilterData_ParseFilterData returns a pointer to a pointer to filter data
by Marvin 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

1 0

Re: [2/2] user32: RealChildWindowFromPoint should skip invisible windows.
by Marvin 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

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=16834 Your paranoid android. === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === WVISTAADM (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W2K8SE (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PRO (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PROX64 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PROX64 (64 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737

1 0

Re: [1/2] user32: Add a bunch of RealChildWindowFromPoint tests.
by Marvin 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

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=16833 Your paranoid android. === W2KPROSP4 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === WXPPROSP3 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W2K3R2SESP2 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === WVISTAADM (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W2K8SE (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PRO (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PROX64 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === W7PROX64 (64 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737 === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit win) === win.c:6753: Test failed: FlashWindowEx succeeded win.c:6764: Test failed: FlashWindowEx failed with -559038737

1 0

Re: user32: Only call SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() if needed. (try 4)
by Dmitry Timoshkov 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Adam Martinson <adam.r.martinson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (We should not be calling SetWindowPos() in UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect() at all.) > Fixes bug 26924. That's not what I was asking about (a bunch of message tests with various parameters). Your current version essentially tests nothing. You should call UpdateLayeredWindowIndirect with a buch of differnt parameters, and check what message sequence they produce and how they change window state. See dlls/user32/tests/msg.c how to create a message test. -- Dmitry.

2 2

Re: [PATCH] [Kernel32]: added a couple of tests about console creation through CreateFile, and fix some corner cases
by Marvin 05 Feb '12

05 Feb '12

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=16816 Your paranoid android. === W7PRO (32 bit console) === console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 0 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 2 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 7 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 9 === W7PROX64 (32 bit console) === console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 0 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 2 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 7 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 9 === TEST64_W7SP1 (32 bit console) === console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 0 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 2 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 7 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 9 === W7PROX64 (64 bit console) === console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 0 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 2 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 7 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 9 === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit console) === console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 0 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 2 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 7 console.c:1173: Test failed: Expected CreateFileW to succeed for index 9

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel February 2012