Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru writes:
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
@@ -752,13 +752,13 @@ static void check_tiff_format(IStream *stream, const WICPixelFormatGUID *format) } else if (IsEqualGUID(format, &GUID_WICPixelFormat2bppIndexed)) {
ok(width == 32, "wrong width %u\n", width);
ok(width == 16, "wrong width %u\n", width); ok(height == 2, "wrong height %u\n", height);
ok(bps == 1, "wrong bps %d\n", bps);
ok(bps == 2, "wrong bps %d\n", bps); ok(photo == 3, "wrong photometric %d\n", photo); ok(samples == 1, "wrong samples %d\n", samples);
ok(colormap == 6, "wrong colormap %d\n", colormap);
ok(colormap == 12, "wrong colormap %d\n", colormap);If the test succeeds both before and after this change, doesn't it mean that 2bpp is never actually tested? What's the point of this test?
It means that the original test is broken, and I had to fix it after adding actual support for it in Wine.
Well, the broken test is added in your 1/9 patch...
That also means that since 2bpp is not supported under Windows I missed that the test is broken while running the test under Windows.
Which is my point, if 2bpp is not supported on Windows what's the point of supporting it in Wine? And having a test for it?
It seems to me that the correct test would be to verify that 2bpp doesn't work, and then Wine should conform to that.