On 10/16/2009 10:38 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
diff --git a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c
index d9b1c72..9104147 100644
--- a/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c
+++ b/dlls/ddraw/tests/d3d.c
@@ -961,6 +961,7 @@ static BOOL D3D1_createObjects(void)
ddsd.dwWidth = 256;
ddsd.dwHeight
NetFwService_create() is unused in dlls/hnetcfg/service.c. I presume
it's meant to be used somehow rather than removed? Maybe a patch is
missing?
--
Francois Gouget fgou...@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. -- unknown
2009/10/21 Paul Vriens paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com:
Should I just get rid of the ok() message and the assignment to hr? Or move
the ok() till after the if()?
Just remove the ok() and assignment, I think.
Eric,
I now tested you 2 async split patches on a pristine 1.1.31, i.e. without
any of my patches. It is a good idea and astep in the right direction. The
next step would be to move all possible tests before the split point,
e.g. return OUTOFRANGE for bad positions.
However, it still hangs in
2009/10/20 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
coming commits for the day. The code was compiled with
-O0 -g to give detailed stacks.
Does that still inline functions? I was looking at this one (and the
resulting crash?):
Invalid write of size 4
at ??? (in /dev/zero)
by
On 10/21/2009 11:46 AM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote:
This is the test for bug #2181. The patch will follow. Currently the
test checks the value of just two classes, it may be useful to extend
this in the future. The test passes on Windows for Workgroups 3.11,
Windows 98, Windows XP 32-bit and
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Eikum wrote:
---
dlls/mshtml/dispex.c | 16 ++--
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+if(This-data-vtbl This-data-vtbl-value){
+IUnknown *unk;
+IDispatchEx_QueryInterface(iface, IID_IUnknown,
Ilya Shpigor wrote:
This is incomplete. How it's supposed to be built?
I actually left the order out of the original test intentionally. The
order is completely predictable on Windows and Wine (the window docked
first ends up closer to the edge), but X docks work differently. They
are controlled by the window manager.
If we ever need to create real X docks for
On 10/21/2009 04:50 PM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
I actually left the order out of the original test intentionally. The
order is completely predictable on Windows and Wine (the window docked
first ends up closer to the edge), but X docks work differently. They
are controlled by the window manager.
Another approach is maybe send the fix as patch1 and the test as patch2?
Personally, I don't like this approach. It can be useful when the fix
corrects a crash, but otherwise, it may be unclear that the fix is
correct until the tests are accepted. If the test is acceptable but
the fix is not,
On 10/21/2009 05:04 PM, Juan Lang wrote:
Another approach is maybe send the fix as patch1 and the test as patch2?
Personally, I don't like this approach. It can be useful when the fix
corrects a crash, but otherwise, it may be unclear that the fix is
correct until the tests are accepted. If
Hi Nate,
the subject line isn't specific enough. We'd prefer you put a brief
description of the change, rather than the bug that motivated it.
E.g. your git commit tag for this, Add tablename tracking to
VIEW_find_column., would be better. For your patch 2/2, you used
Test for bug 20227 as the
Hi Hans,
-size = (lstrlenW(value) + 1 + size) * sizeof(WCHAR);
+size += (lstrlenW(value) + 1) * sizeof(WCHAR);
I don't see how you're avoiding accessing uninitialize memory here.
Could you enlighten me?
I think it's complaining about value, by the way, which could be NULL
Juan Lang juan.l...@gmail.com writes:
Commit d3c482250a8232e9657ecefb3e61fff0194e3fbe added a test that
showed that the default provider should accept RC2 keys of up to 128
bits in length. The trouble is the fix was wrong: the default
provider in Wine was the base cryptographic provider,
I would prefer that the test pass if the order turns out to be
different, to leave possibilities open for future implementations.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Paul Vriens
paul.vriens.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/2009 04:50 PM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
I actually left the order out of the
It fails for me:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p
advapi32_test.exe.so crypt.c touch crypt.ok
crypt.c:972: Test failed: CryptImportKey error 2148073481
make: *** [crypt.ok] Error 1
Odd. On a clean wineprefix, I presume?
--Juan
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 17:22:08 Juan Lang wrote:
-size = (lstrlenW(value) + 1 + size) * sizeof(WCHAR);
+size += (lstrlenW(value) + 1) * sizeof(WCHAR);
I don't see how you're avoiding accessing uninitialize memory here.
Could you enlighten me?
size is calculated in
On 10/21/2009 05:42 PM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
I would prefer that the test pass if the order turns out to be
different, to leave possibilities open for future implementations.
Fine, but that was not the intent of my patch. The order is not
different on any of the platforms as the (new) tests
Juan Lang juan.l...@gmail.com writes:
It fails for me:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M advapi32.dll -T ../../.. -p
advapi32_test.exe.so crypt.c touch crypt.ok
crypt.c:972: Test failed: CryptImportKey error 2148073481
make: *** [crypt.ok] Error 1
Odd. On a clean wineprefix, I
Hi,
Can I ask folks with Windows available to them to run a test for me?
I'm attaching a patch for the winmm wave.c test to test the behavior
of waveOutSetVolume and waveOutGetVolume, in particular the difference
between setting/getting the volume with a device identifier versus a
2009/10/21 Ilya Shpigor shpi...@etersoft.ru:
You need to add the program to configure.ac, as well as add Makefile.in
--
-Austin
Austin English wrote:
2009/10/21 Ilya Shpigor shpi...@etersoft.ru:
You need to add the program to configure.ac, as well as add Makefile.in
No you don't need to (most patches do add some subset of autogenerated
files for some reason but it is not necessary).
Marcus Meissner mar...@jet.franken.de writes:
Hi,
While one usually does not pass in LDFLAGS to dll building, one
probably should be able to.
This should be passed from the makefile, not expanded inside LDDLLFLAGS.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Hi Nikolay,
I don't think you need such duplication. Why not to use a single
rectangle? Looks like you always offset it to listview origin,
so these rectangle differ in offset only, that's why you introduced
another iterator_* helper. If I'm right about that it's better to
add another
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Eikum wrote:
---
dlls/mshtml/htmlimg.c | 46
+-
1 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
+if(params-cArgs = 2) {
+width = params-rgvarg;
+height = params-rgvarg + 1;
+}else if(params-cArgs
Jacek Caban wrote:
argc = params-cArgs - params-cNamedArgs;
width = argc = 2 ? params-rgvarg+argc-1 : empty;
height = argc = 1 ? params-rgvarg+argc-2 : empty;
I've made an obvious mistake here, but I guess it's easy to fix :)
Jacek
It fails for me:
The trouble is, the test is invalid. It imports a key using
CRYPT_IPSEC_HMAC_KEY, which Wine currently ignores. rsaenh currently
doesn't implement HMAC. The chromium tests, on which this test case
was built, also checks the resulting output from using this key, and
Wine
Hi Dan,
Dan Kegel wrote:
Hi Jacek!
Please have a look at
http://kegel.com/wine/valgrind/logs/2009-10-20-01.09/vg-jscript_run.txt
There are a few interesting errors there. The first one (with a
little context from
http://kegel.com/wine/valgrind/logs/2009-10-20-01.09.log) is:
Thanks for the
Jacek Caban wrote:
Jacek Caban wrote:
argc = params-cArgs - params-cNamedArgs;
width = argc = 2 ? params-rgvarg+argc-1 : empty;
height = argc = 1 ? params-rgvarg+argc-2 : empty;
I've made an obvious mistake here, but I guess it's easy to fix :)
Thanks for the help, Jacek.
If I'm
Andrew Eikum wrote:
Jacek Caban wrote:
Jacek Caban wrote:
argc = params-cArgs - params-cNamedArgs;
width = argc = 2 ? params-rgvarg+argc-1 : empty;
height = argc = 1 ? params-rgvarg+argc-2 : empty;
I've made an obvious mistake here, but I guess it's easy to fix :)
Thanks for the help,
Hi,
Here's a new version of my patch that's slightly less complicated. I
didn't get a response last time, so I'm sending it again. Please,
someone review my patch. I won't send it to wine-patches until I know I
have this right (yes, I am a bit of a perfectionist).
To reiterate what I said about
32 matches
Mail list logo
