wine-devel July 2017

wine-devel@winehq.org

49 participants
161 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Re: [PATCH 1/3] user32/tests: Add tests for activating windows.
by Marvin 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/6] gdiplus: Support GdipSetSmoothingMode in metafiles
by Vincent Povirk 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

According to the spec, SmoothingModeHighSpeed also does no antialiasing.

2 1

Re: [PATCH 7/9] msvcr120: Add erfc.
by Piotr Caban 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

On 07/10/17 06:55, Alex Henrie wrote: > /********************************************************************* > + * erfc (MSVCR120.@) > + */ > +double CDECL MSVCR120_erfc(double x) > +{ > +#ifdef HAVE_ERFC > + return erfc(x); > +#else > + FIXME( "not implemented\n" ); > + return 0.0; > +#endif You can return 1.0 - MSVCR120_erf(x) if erfc is not available. Thanks, Piotr

2 2

Re: winhttp/tests: Make notification tests more strict.
by Marvin 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

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=32231 Your paranoid android. === w7pro64 (32 bit notification) === notification.c:219: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 219: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:226: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:236: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:248: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 8. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:282: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 1. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 282: expected function 2 got 1 notification.c:315: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 315: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 315: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:322: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:332: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 341: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 341: expected function 1 got 8 === w1064 (64 bit notification) === notification.c:219: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 219: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:226: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 226: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 226: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:90: Test failed: 219: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:236: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 236: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 236: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:248: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 8. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:89: Test failed: 248: expected status 0x00000400 got 0x00000800 notification.c:90: Test failed: 248: expected function 2 got 8 notification.c:282: Test failed: unexpected function 2, expected 1. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 282: expected function 2 got 1 notification.c:315: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 2. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 315: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000400 notification.c:90: Test failed: 315: expected function 8 got 2 notification.c:322: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 3. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000010 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:89: Test failed: 322: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000020 notification.c:90: Test failed: 322: expected function 8 got 3 notification.c:332: Test failed: unexpected function 8, expected 4. probably some notifications were missing notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000040 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4 notification.c:89: Test failed: 332: expected status 0x00000800 got 0x00000080 notification.c:90: Test failed: 332: expected function 8 got 4

1 0

Re: [PATCH 4/4] msvcp140: Implement _Stat and _Lstat.
by Marvin 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/2] advapi32/tests: Statically link to ConvertSidToStringSidA()
by Dmitry Timoshkov 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Nikolay Sivov <nsivov(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > -static BOOL (WINAPI *pConvertSidToStringSidA)( PSID pSid, LPSTR *str ); > static BOOL (WINAPI *pConvertStringSidToSidA)( LPCSTR str, PSID pSid ); ... > - pConvertSidToStringSidA = (void *)GetProcAddress(hmod, "ConvertSidToStringSidA"); > pConvertStringSidToSidA = (void *)GetProcAddress(hmod, "ConvertStringSidToSidA"); ... > - if( !pConvertSidToStringSidA || !pConvertStringSidToSidA ) > + if( !pConvertStringSidToSidA ) What's so special about ConvertSidToStringSidA and why same logic won't apply to ConvertStringSidToSidA and possibly others? -- Dmitry.

2 2

Re: [PATCH 7/7] gdiplus: Add EMF+ properties records tests
by Piotr Caban 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

On 07/11/17 11:42, Piotr Caban wrote: > Signed-off-by: Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com> > --- > dlls/gdiplus/tests/metafile.c | 78 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+) > I've sent it incorrectly so it wasn't picked by testbot. Here are the results: https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=32226 Thanks, Piotr

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/6] gdiplus: Support GdipSetPixelOffsetMode in metafiles
by Dmitry Timoshkov 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > + if(graphics->pixeloffset == mode) > + return Ok; This particular change would need an approproate test case to confirm that repetitive GdipSetPixelOffsetMode() calls with the same value won't generate new records. Same applies to other patches in the series. -- Dmitry.

1 1

Re: [PATCH 1/7] d3dx9/tests: Add test for skip_constants effect parameter.
by Matteo Bruni 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

2017-07-06 13:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > +static void test_effect_skip_constants(IDirect3DDevice9 *device) > +{ > + HRESULT hr; > + ID3DXEffect *effect; > + unsigned int passes_count; > + D3DXVECTOR4 fvect; > + unsigned int i; > + > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, "v3", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + todo_wine > + ok(hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); > + if (SUCCEEDED(hr)) > + effect->lpVtbl->Release(effect); > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, "v4", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + todo_wine > + ok(hr == D3DERR_INVALIDCALL, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); > + if (SUCCEEDED(hr)) > + effect->lpVtbl->Release(effect); > + > + hr = D3DXCreateEffectEx(device, test_effect_skip_constants_blob, sizeof(test_effect_skip_constants_blob), > + NULL, NULL, " v1#,.+-= &\t\nv2*/!\"'v5 v6[1]", 0, NULL, &effect, NULL); > + ok(hr == D3D_OK, "Got result %#x.\n", hr); Maybe also add a test with the "expected" syntax for the skip_constants parameters? MSDN mentions a semicolon-separated list. Of course it's not strictly needed, given this test... > + > + todo_wine > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v1", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + todo_wine > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v2", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v3", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v4", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); > + ok(!effect->lpVtbl->IsParameterUsed(effect, "v5", "tech0"), > + "Unexpected IsParameterUsed result.\n"); What about "v6"?

2 1

Re: [PATCH 5/7] d3dx9: Fail effect creation when shader parameter evaluator creation fails.
by Matteo Bruni 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

2017-07-06 13:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Gofman <gofmanp(a)gmail.com>: > @@ -6099,8 +6100,9 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_parse_resource(struct d3dx9_base_effect *base, const char * > { > if (FAILED(hr = d3dx9_create_object(base, object))) > return hr; > - d3dx_create_param_eval(base, object->data, object->size, param->type, > - &param->param_eval, get_version_counter_ptr(base)); > + if (FAILED(hr = d3dx_create_param_eval(base, object->data, object->size, param->type, > + &param->param_eval, get_version_counter_ptr(base)))) > + return hr; > } > break; > > @@ -6138,8 +6140,11 @@ static HRESULT d3dx9_parse_resource(struct d3dx9_base_effect *base, const char * It looks like you missed another call to d3dx_create_param_eval() in between these two.

2 1

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
17
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 July 2017