wine-devel January 2014

wine-devel@winehq.org

56 participants
177 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [PATCH] oleaut32: Fix RecordCopy()/RecordClear() behavior
by Marvin 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

2 1

Re: mshtml/tests: Use common wine_dbgstr_guid implementation from test.h (resend)
by Marvin 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

1 0

Re: [PATCH] shell32: Older shell32 doesn't support CSIDL_PROGRAM_FILES
by Alexandre Julliard 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > --- > This should fix the failing NT4 tests. > > These tests are _really_ old, like 2005. I'm surprised they haven't > been fixed by now. Is there something I'm missing? They should probably have been fixed back then, but at this point NT4 isn't worth the trouble anymore, we should simply get rid of it in the test results. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: [2/2] winhttp/tests: Only advance to the next notification test if the function is ok.
by Marvin 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4521 Your paranoid android. === wvista (32 bit notification) === notification.c:363: Test failed: failed to receive response 12029 notification.c:368: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 0 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 441: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:99: Test failed: 447: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:455: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:456: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 2293700 notification.c:460: Test failed: failed to query data available 12019 Timeout === w7pro64 (32 bit notification) === notification.c:455: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:456: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 2686916 notification.c:460: Test failed: failed to query data available 12019 Timeout === w2008s64 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:359: Test failed: failed to send request 12029 notification.c:363: Test failed: failed to receive response 12017 notification.c:367: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:368: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 4 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 === w7pro64 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:359: Test failed: failed to send request 12002 notification.c:363: Test failed: failed to receive response 12019 notification.c:368: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 4 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8

1 0

Re: [1/2] winhttp/tests: Ignore some missing notifications.
by Marvin 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4520 Your paranoid android. === wvista (32 bit notification) === notification.c:363: Test failed: failed to receive response 12029 notification.c:368: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 0 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 4 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 441: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:99: Test failed: 447: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:455: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:456: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 2293700 notification.c:460: Test failed: failed to query data available 12019 Timeout === w2008s64 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:359: Test failed: failed to send request 12029 notification.c:363: Test failed: failed to receive response 12017 notification.c:367: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:368: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 4 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 370: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00000800 notification.c:100: Test failed: 370: expected function 3 got 8 notification.c:99: Test failed: 441: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:99: Test failed: 447: expected status 0x00000008 got 0x00200000 notification.c:455: Test failed: failed unexpectedly 12019 notification.c:456: Test failed: request failed unexpectedly 0 notification.c:460: Test failed: failed to query data available 12019 Timeout === w7pro64 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:100: Test failed: 447: expected function 3 got 4

1 0

Re: wininet: InternetGetConnectedStateExW must return TRUE for success
by Michael Stefaniuc 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

Bruno, On 01/29/2014 02:27 AM, Bruno Jesus wrote: > Citavi relies on == TRUE comparison so return TRUE instead of != FALSE > > Fixes bug 17796 > > See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17796#c6 for AF analysis. > > > connect.txt > > > diff --git a/dlls/wininet/internet.c b/dlls/wininet/internet.c > index a49026c..e0f8f1b 100644 > --- a/dlls/wininet/internet.c > +++ b/dlls/wininet/internet.c > @@ -1219,7 +1219,7 @@ BOOL WINAPI InternetGetConnectedStateExW(LPDWORD lpdwStatus, LPWSTR lpszConnecti > WARN("always returning LAN connection.\n"); > *lpdwStatus = INTERNET_CONNECTION_LAN; > } > - return LoadStringW(WININET_hModule, IDS_LANCONNECTION, lpszConnectionName, dwNameLen); > + return LoadStringW(WININET_hModule, IDS_LANCONNECTION, lpszConnectionName, dwNameLen) ? TRUE : FALSE; we're getting rid of "? TRUE : FALSE" constructs in Wine as those are ugly and confusing. In this case a "return LoadStringW() != 0;" or even "> 0" is better as LoadString returns 0 on failure and a string length on success. bye michael

2 1

Re: [patch]: include : Add missing API to direct-x 9's shader header
by Henri Verbeet 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

On 28 January 2014 16:13, Kai Tietz <ktietz70(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Resent patch without inlining. > Well, inline is prefered, but using git send-email makes it much easier to not mess that up. > +#define D3DXCONSTTABLE_LARGEADDRESSAWARE»······ 0x20000 You have a stray tab here. > -DEFINE_GUID(IID_ID3DXConstantTable, 0x9dca3190, 0x38b9, 0x4fc3, 0x92, 0xe3, 0x39, 0xc6, 0xdd, 0xfb, 0x35, 0x8b); > +DEFINE_GUID(IID_ID3DXConstantTable, 0xab3c758f, 0x93e, 0x4356, 0xb7, 0x62, 0x4d, 0xb1, 0x8f, 0x1b, 0x3a, 0x1); I may not have explicitly said this in my previous mail about this patch, but I think the headers should be consistent. So if you make this change, you can't keep D3DX_SDK_VERSION at 36. If you bump it to 43, there may be changes to other interfaces you need to make as well. This could also have consequences for the actual implementation. > + STDMETHOD(GetConstantBuffer)(THIS_ LPD3DXBUFFER *ppConstantBuffer) PURE; Please avoid names like "ppConstantBuffer" and typedefs like LPD3DXBUFFER unless required for compatibility. So e.g.: + STDMETHOD(GetConstantBuffer)(THIS_ ID3DXBuffer **constant_buffer) PURE;

1 0

Re: gdiplus: Add tests for GetMetafileHeader functions.
by Marvin 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

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 https://newtestbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=4513 Your paranoid android. === wxppro (32 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 === wvista (32 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 === w2008s64 (32 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 === w7pro64 (32 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 === w2008s64 (64 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279999 === w7pro64 (64 bit metafile) === metafile.c:338: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:339: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:372: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:373: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:399: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991 metafile.c:400: Test failed: Expected 72.000000, got 81.279991

1 0

FOSDEM planning - last mailing list warning
by Jeremy White 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Hi folks, This is it. If you are not subscribed to the wineconf mailing list, but you're planning to be at FOSDEM, you are going to be left out of all the cool parties and fun. We'll move our chatter and planning exclusively to that email list. So, if you're coming to FOSDEM, and you didn't get two copies of this email, sign up for it now: http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wineconf Cheers, Jeremy

1 0

Re: shell32/tests: Add test for GetLastError in shlfileop
by Dmitry Timoshkov 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Zhenbo Li <litimetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ret = SHFileOperationA(&shfo); > todo_wine > ok(ret == 1026 || > ret == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND || /* Vista */ > broken(ret == ERROR_SUCCESS), /* NT4 */ > "Expected 1026 or ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND, got %d\n", ret); > + todo_wine > + ok(GetLastError() == 0 || > + broken(GetLastError()==ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND), /* win 2000 */ > + "gle = %d\n", GetLastError() ); 'ret == ERROR_SUCCESS (0)' case is marked as broken above, so using broken for 'GetLastError() == 0' instead of ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND would match that behaviour. Same comment applies for other added tests. In general I don't think that adding last error tests for SHFileOperation is very useful because 1) this API returns error codes directly 2) according to the tests both returned error codes and set last error values differ in almost every Windows version, so it's very unlikely that there is an app that depends on this. -- Dmitry.

2 5

Jump to page:

2025

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 January 2014