Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> case WICBitmapPaletteTypeFixedHalftone125:
> colors = generate_halftone125_palette(&count, add_transparent);
> - if (!colors) return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
> break;
>
> case WICBitmapPaletteTypeFixedHalftone216:
> colors = generate_halftone216_palette(&count, add_transparent);
> - if (!colors) return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
> break;
>
> case …
[View More]WICBitmapPaletteTypeFixedHalftone252:
> colors = generate_halftone252_palette(&count, add_transparent);
> - if (!colors) return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
> break;
>
> case WICBitmapPaletteTypeFixedHalftone256:
> colors = generate_halftone256_palette(&count, add_transparent);
> - if (!colors) return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
> break;
>
> default:
> @@ -406,6 +417,9 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI PaletteImpl_InitializePredefined(IWICPalette *iface,
> return E_INVALIDARG;
> }
>
> + if (!colors)
> + return E_OUTOFMEMORY;
That's hardly an improvement, at best this is a personal preference.
When I wrote this code I was considering other versions as well, and
current variant I like better. Please leave this code as it is.
--
Dmitry.
[View Less]
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com>
> ---
> This addresses https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11770 for systems with xdg-email.
Hi, for unknown reasons I did not receive the v4 email so I'm replying
here. Is there any way to test this without Microsoft Office?
Best wishes,
Bruno
On 2016-12-05 19:28, Andrew Eikum wrote:
> +static inline short C2416(int s)
> +{
> + return HIWORD(s);
> +}
> +
Just wondering: Is it true that msacm32 doesn't do any dithering?
--
Lauri Kenttä
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=27243
Your paranoid android.
=== wxppro (32 bit file) ===
file.c:2389: Test failed: open failed for modes 40/2/40010000/2
file.c:2393: Test failed: wrong error code 32
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=27238
Your paranoid android.
=== wvistau64 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:8981: Test failed: GetActiveWindow() = 000200E0
win.c:8981: Test failed: GetFocus() = 000200E0
=== w8 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: …
[View More]GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w864 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w1064 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected 00111100
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected 00222200
=== w864 (64 bit win) ===
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w1064 (64 bit win) ===
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected 00111100
win.c:9390: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9397: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00ffffff, expected 00222200
[View Less]
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=27237
Your paranoid android.
=== w8 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9394: Test …
[View More]failed: test 2: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9403: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w864 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9403: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w1064 (32 bit win) ===
win.c:9386: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9394: Test failed: test 2: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9403: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w864 (64 bit win) ===
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9403: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
=== w1064 (64 bit win) ===
win.c:9386: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9388: Test failed: test 0: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9394: Test failed: test 2: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
win.c:9403: Test failed: test 5: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected 00111100
win.c:9391: Test failed: test 1: GetPixel: got 00111100, expected ffffffff
win.c:9400: Test failed: test 4: GetPixel: got 00222200, expected ffffffff
[View Less]
On 07.12.2016 07:27, Bruno Jesus wrote:
> I have used this in some situations to check how network enabled applications react to not having network access. IMO it is useful but if nobody cares I don't mind it being rejected.
I like it. Can you document it in a manpage?
Greets
jre
On 7 December 2016 at 13:45, Józef Kucia <jkucia(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
> Fixes the test failure with Nvidia binary driver.
>
Well yes, but that's a much less interesting rotation.