wine-devel August 2015

wine-devel@winehq.org

59 participants
198 discussions

different behaviors of mixed-mode assembly under .net/wine-mono/native mono.
by Hin-Tak Leung 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

Hi, I am trying to look into a somewhat curious issue about mixed mode assembly under wine-mono. The application works correctly under wine + MS .net 2. With native mono on the explicit command line, either win32 mono + wine, or x86_64 linux mono on x86_64 linux, the win32 native constructor of a class returns a null. That's fair enough. But with wine-mono, the application does not behave either like .net 2 or win32 mono on the command line. It throws illegal IL code exception. So I have a specific question - how do I go about finding out how the IL code exception comes about? (I have had a couple of patches in either camp so I am not against patching wine or mono, or wine-mono for that matter) And a general question: are mixed mode assemblies supposed to work under win32 mono at all, or wine-mono definitely needed? I saw some wine + mono discussions a while ago and I got the impression that mixed mode assemblies are supposed to work with win32 mono somewhat? The application itself is available as a public download in binary form. But since it mostly works - correctly under .net, and even the illegal IL exception was caught, just not the null constructor. Editing the IL code to put a try+catch around the constructor makes it largely operational too under linux mono, so there is not much of a bug to file; mostly a curiosity why wine-mono doesn't behave like it support mixed-mode fully, or not at all, but something between. Hin-Tak

2 1

Re: [PATCH 7/7] d3d11/tests: Add test for device interfaces.
by Marvin 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

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://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=16187 Your paranoid android. === wvistau64 (32 bit d3d11) === d3d11.c:80: Test failed: Device should implement ID3D10Multithread interface, hr 0x80004002. d3d11: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00401721 === w2008s64 (32 bit d3d11) === d3d11.c:80: Test failed: Device should implement ID3D10Multithread interface, hr 0x80004002. d3d11: unhandled exception c0000005 at 00401721 === wvistau64 (64 bit d3d11) === d3d11.c:80: Test failed: Device should implement ID3D10Multithread interface, hr 0x80004002. d3d11: unhandled exception c0000005 at 000000000040168C === w2008s64 (64 bit d3d11) === d3d11.c:80: Test failed: Device should implement ID3D10Multithread interface, hr 0x80004002. d3d11: unhandled exception c0000005 at 000000000040168C

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] xaudio2: Add stub IXAudio2MasteringVoice implementation
by Henri Verbeet 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

On 20 August 2015 at 22:06, Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > +struct IXAudio2MasteringVoiceVtbl XAudio2MasteringVoice_Vtbl = { Should that have been "static const"?

2 1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] xaudio2: Implement IXAudio2::GetDeviceDetails
by Marvin 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

1 0

Re: [PATCH] po: Update Finnish translation.
by Nikolay Sivov 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

On 21.08.2015 16:02, Lauri Kenttä wrote: > #: uninstaller.rc:33 > -#, fuzzy > -#| msgid "Error: Invalid option '%c'.\n" > msgid "uninstaller: Invalid option [%1]\n" > -msgstr "Virhe: Viallinen vaihtoehto '%c'.\n" > +msgstr "unistaller: Virheellinen valitsin [%1]\n" Hi, Lauri. Is this a typo in "uninstaller" ?

1 0

Re: [3/3] server: Do not permit FileDispositionInformation to delete a file without write access.
by Marvin 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

1 0

Re: [PATCH] gdi32: unlock critsection on error exit (Coverity)
by Nikolay Sivov 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

On Friday, August 21, 2015, Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> wrote: > 713131 Missing unlock > --- > dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > I think enum_face_charsets() unlocks it internally, is it not a case sometimes?

1 0

Re: [2/3] server: Add support for setting file disposition information.
by Marvin 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/5] d3d11/tests: Add test for device interfaces. (try 2)
by Henri Verbeet 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

On 21 August 2015 at 00:07, Józef Kucia <jkucia(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > Try 2: > * Add missing "implement" in a test failure message. > * It seems that ID3D10Multithread is not available on Windows Vista. Odd. (Although perhaps more so the fact that it is available on the other Windows versions while e.g. ID3D10Device1 isn't.) > + if (SUCCEEDED(D3D11CreateDevice(NULL, D3D_DRIVER_TYPE_HARDWARE, NULL, 0, &feature_level, 1, D3D11_SDK_VERSION, > + &device, NULL, NULL))) I think the indentation here is a bit weird. Strictly speaking I suppose it's correct because the D3D11CreateDevice() call is inside a SUCCEEDED(), but I'd prefer just 8 space indent.

1 0

Re: msvcirt: Add a more accurate implementation of streambuf::pbackfail
by Piotr Caban 21 Aug '15

21 Aug '15

On 08/19/15 19:04, Iván Matellanes wrote: > +/* ?pbackfail@streambuf@@UAEHH@Z */ > +/* ?pbackfail@streambuf@@UEAAHH@Z */ > +DEFINE_THISCALL_WRAPPER(streambuf_pbackfail, 8) > +#define call_streambuf_pbackfail(this, c) CALL_VTBL_FUNC(this, 36, int, (streambuf*, int), (this, c)) > +int __thiscall streambuf_pbackfail(streambuf *this, int c) > +{ > + TRACE("(%p %d)\n", this, c); > + if (this->gptr > this->eback) > + return *--this->gptr = c; > + if (call_streambuf_seekoff(this, -1, SEEKDIR_cur, OPENMODE_in) == EOF) > + return EOF; > + return c; > +} If seekoff is used the buffers needs to be updated. Otherwise next read will return incorrect data. You will need to make space for put back character and place it in the buffer. Thanks, Piotr

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
20
Older →

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 August 2015